HMP Sudbury Heritage Appraisal Technical Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This technical note has been informed by desk-based research, utilising the following sources: � a search of the Historic England National Heritage List for England (NHLE) dataset for designated heritage assets within the study area; � an examination of local, regional and national planning policies in relation to the historic environment; � an inspection of the cartographic evidence for the land use history of the site; and � other available online historic sources (identified in footnotes where relevant). This technical note has been produced in line with the following guidance: � National Planning Policy Framework, Chapter 16 (2019); � Historic England Good Practice Advice Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015) ; � Historic England Good Practice Advice Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017) and; � Historic England Advice Note 12 - Statement of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets Historic England Advice (2019). The following impacts are anticipated from the proposed scheme: � There is the potential for both temporary and permanent impacts to the significance of Sudbury Hall Grade II Registered Park and Garden (NHLE ID: 1000684) and the Grade II* listed deercote (NHLE ID: 1238617). This is due to the possible changes to the settings of both assets and to the character of the registered park and garden by the proposed works; and � There is anticipated temporary low to negligible adverse impact on the designated heritage assets surrounding HMP Sudbury during the temporary works; It is recommended that a full Heritage Statement is produced to assess and record the settings of the designated assets and investigate any impact the works at the site of HMP Sudbury might cause, based on the recommendations of Paragraph 189 of the NPPF.
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 | 0.015 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.540 | 0.245 |
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".