Archaeological desk-based assessment and rapid buildings appraisal of the former Stanley Tools, Rutland Road, ShefÏeld
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2006, ARCUS were commissioned by ECUS Ltd to undertake a desk-based assessment of land off Rutland Road, ShefÏeld, South Yorkshire (SK 352 889). The assessment included a site visit, along with documentary and cartographic research. The report was revised in February 2007 to include the remaining areas and buildings within the site. The aims of the desk-based assessment were to establish the archaeological and historical background of the site, and to assess the potential for the survival of subsurface archaeological features. The impact of the development proposals on buried archaeological deposits was also noted. The present-day Woodside Lane had been constructed by 1631. However, there is no evidence relating directly to the proposal area itself prior to 1795, when the site contained a mix of cultivated and uncultivated land. Sub-rectangular structures shown within the northern part of Area A at that time are likely to have been the three-storey, terraced properties that remained extant at this location until their demolition in 1960. Terraced structures shown to the rear in 1808 appear to have been replaced by further domestic buildings on the same alignment by 1889. These were also demolished during the mid-20th century. Allotments, gardens and associated features such as wells, troughs, pumps and a summerhouse shown within the site in 1853 were removed when urbanisation occurred throughout the area during the third quarter of the 19 th century. By 1889 the site was dominated by domestic, retail, industrial and religious premises, many of which remained extant until the third quarter of the 20th century Within Area B, the former Chapmans Industry Tool Works remains partially extant but is incorporated into later structures and appears to retain few historic features. Substantial excavation during the construction of these blocks, along with Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 within Area C, is likely to have removed any archaeological deposits within these areas. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 represent the Art Deco house-style adopted by Stanley Tools during the second third of the 20 th century and may be worthy of recording via a programme of archaeological photography. Areas D and E were developed between 1853 and 1889, with Birley Street and a number of domestic and retail premises having been constructed by 1879. The majority of buildings within Areas D and E remained extant until the demolition programmes of 1959 and 1960. In common with Area A, these locations have remained largely undeveloped and subsurface archaeological deposits and features relating to the sites 18th- and 19th-century structures may be preserved in situ. Further archaeological evaluation may be required in order to assess the extent of survival of subsurface archaeological features and deposits within Areas A, D and E.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".