MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931693023 · doi:10.5284/1112516

Tuckingmill, Camborne, Cornwall: Historic Building Recording (Level 2)

2023· article· en· W6931693023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld heritageQuarter (Canadian coin)Key (lock)Old townHistorical heritage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As specified in the WSI (CA 2017), the building recording survey was to cover Buildings 19-30 on Fig. 10 of the previous archaeological assessment (Cornwall Council 2010). However, it was not possible to survey some of these buildings: " Buildings 25, 26, 28 and 29 had already been demolished; " Buildings 22 and 23a were not seen due to thick vegetation, though it is believed that little of these buildings survives. In June and July 2017, Cotswold Archaeology carried out a historic building recording survey at Tuckingmill, Camborne, Cornwall. The recorded buildings originally formed part of the Bickford Smith's Fuseworks. The 19th century 'V Building' and the early 20th century 'North Lights Building' are the earliest buildings on the site. They are key elements of the Tuckingmill & Roskear Conservation Area, as well as forming part of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. The remaining buildings included in the building recording survey are more recent constructions of lower historical importance, and can mainly be characterised as ancillary buildings. All of the buildings have undergone significant deterioration since the mid-1990s. Nearly half of the original buildings on site having been demolished or having disappeared from view, while the remaining buildings having been damaged by fire, vandalism and overgrown vegetation.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology Data ServiceSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207