Archaeological assessment and Report for Exeter Cathedral and its Precinct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An assessment of archaeological matters relating to the Cathedral and its precinct. Under the amendments of the Care of Cathedrals Measure of 2008, each cathedral Chapter is required to arrange for its archaeologist to undertake an assessment of archaeological matters relating to its cathedral and precinct, and to produce a report containing recommendations on: (i) how these matters should be managed, and (ii) the compilation and maintenance of archaeological records. The present report provides such a document for Exeter Cathedral; it follows the structure outlined in the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England's paper The Archaeological Assessment and Report for Cathedrals and their Precincts (2009). In reviewing the current state of archaeological practice at Exeter, reference is also made to the CFCE documents The Roles and Duties of the Cathedral Archaeologist (2010) and Cathedrals and Archaeology: A Guide to Good Management (1994). The report describes the state of archaeological matters only within the Dean and Chapter's ownership; the references in the final section, however, list some reports on archaeological work in adjacent properties which are relevant to the archaeology of the Chapter lands.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".