MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6894312798 · doi:10.5284/1111490

St. Neots Priory Quarter and Priory Centre Heritage Desk Based Assessment

2022· article· en· W6894312798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Plot (graphics)DeskUrban planningHistoric siteWorld heritage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of resources were consulted in the production of this heritage statement, including: � Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record (HER) (received 02/02/22); � The National Heritage List for England (NHLE); � Local, regional and national planning policies relating to the historic environment. This includes conservation area appraisals and management plans; � Available online cartographic sources; � Additional available online historic resources; � Huntingdonshire Archives Mott MacDonald have been commissioned by Huntingdonshire District Council to produce a historic environment desk-based assessment (DBA) for four proposed development areas within the St Neots Priory Quarter / Priory Centre area. Within proposed development area 1 a four-storey residential building with a plot size of 3,382 m2 is proposed, whereas within proposed development area 2 a three-storey building with a plot size of 2,076 m2 is proposed for both retail and residential use. Within proposed development area 3 a three-storey building with a plot size of 1,157m2is proposed for both office and community use, within area 5 a three-storey building with a plot size of 1,196m2 has been proposed for residential use. The proposed development areas are located within the town of St Neots to the east of the River Great Ouse, within the Ouse Valley and fall within the St. Neots conservation area. Two scheduled monuments and 126 listed buildings are within the 1km study area. There are no designated or non-designated heritage assets within the proposed development boundaries, however, it has been determined that the scheduled Priory likely extended further than it's scheduling suggests. This assessment has identified that there are known archaeological remains within the study area, indicating that there was activity within this landscape from the prehistoric period. Cartographic and aerial photographic evidence indicate that only proposed development area 1 has remained undeveloped. The potential for palaeoenvironmental evidence within the proposed development areas is considered to be medium. The potential for archaeological remains dating to the early medieval and medieval is considered to be high within all proposed development areas, with remains dating to the late post-medieval considered to be high within proposed development areas 1-3. The potential for early post-medieval remains is considered to be medium within all proposed development areas, with the potential for late-post medieval remains within proposed development area 5 also considered to be medium. The potential for Prehistoric, Roman and Modern remains within all proposed development areas is considered to be low.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology Data ServiceSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207