MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968862815 · doi:10.5284/1111774

Watching Brief at Langford Mill Eel Screen

2021· article· en· W6968862815 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcavationNatural (archaeology)Foundation (evidence)MillColluviumTerrace (agriculture)Topsoil

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Archaeological monitoring was undertaken during the removal of vegetation and topsoil for the crane platform, turning area and access areas within the site. The excavation was undertaken using a mini digger fitted with a flat blade ditching bucket in thin 100mm layers. The archaeological monitoring was carried out in accordance with CIfA's Standard and Guidance for an Archaeological Watching Brief . The archaeological watching brief recorded no significant archaeological features, deposits or finds. However, a concrete foundation/plinth thought to correspond to a former mill building, constructed in 1879 and demolished in the mid-20th-century, was exposed. It is uncertain whether this feature may represent the original foundation of the mill building wall or a modern capping of the foundation below. The plinth/foundation was sealed by a modern consolidation deposit which extended across the majority of the stripped area. Gravels, which may represent re-deposited natural river terrace gravels, or potentially the interface between the topsoil and the natural geology were recorded at 0.48m below ground level.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.248 · 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