Watching Brief at The Cobb, Lyme Regis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by West Dorset District Council (WDDC), under guidance from Jeremy Benn Associates Ltd (JBA Ltd), to undertake an archaeological watching brief and geoarchaeological monitoring of site investigation works at the Cobb, Lyme Regis, West Dorset. Site investigation works involved seven hand dug test pits, five machine dug test pits and four window sampled boreholes located in and around the harbour. No deposits of palaeoenvironmental or geoarchaeological significance were found to be present; with storm beach deposits (aka marine beach shingles) found to overlie sedimentary mudstones. However, earlier phases of the Cobb itself were observed and recorded. The monitoring of the machine dug trial pits recorded a section of 16th century Cowstone foundations on the north side of the Southern Arm and a single displaced Portland Limestone block with characteristic dovetail joint dating it to a repair of 1785. No other archaeological artefacts or features were found. However, this study has shown that future work close to the existing Cobb walls will need to be carried out with care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".