Window sample, earthwork condition survey, and archaeological trial pit survey at Althorpe Estate, Northampton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A programme of 27 window samples, 9 archaeological trial pits, and an earthwork survey. 27 window samples drilled to a depth of 5m using a terrier rig and located using GNSS. The cores were recovered in 1m plastic liners, which were split open, and recorded on site using the Troels-Smith system of sediment classification. The holes were backfilled with the arising and topped up with bentonite (where recovered). 3 complete cores were retained for sub sampling. 9 test pits, measuring a minimum of 2m x 1.8m, excavated by an excavator; under archaeological supervision. The earthwork survey was conducted via site walkover, in accordance with guidance, with attention paid to area of erosion and potential impacts of vegetation growth. A photographic record was made of their condition. The archaeological trial pits were targeted onto Area 1, over proposed Feature B which is close to due to the Harlestone cropmark complex. The archaeological trial pit survey demonstrated a lack of archaeological remains in this location. An earthwork condition survey was carried out on a possible moated feature of unknown date was highlighted within the Heritage Statement where a possible medieval date was noted. However, the earliest evidence available is the depiction of the course of the Brampton Brook, following the northern course of the moat, on 1885 OS mapping. There was some evidence of erosion of the grass sward by horses but on the whole there was little in the way of erosion. The interior was free of tree growth with shrubs and remnant hedgerow confined to the exterior of the feature. The geoarchaeological window samples recorded a similar sequence to that seen along the Brampton Branch at Lamport and Cottesbrook. The current channel is fairly steep-sided and deep but with only a shallow stream
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".