MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6969200803 · doi:10.5284/1111038

Purfleet, St. Margaret's, Beacon Hill

2011· article· en· W6969200803 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDitchExcavationTerrace (agriculture)Settlement (finance)World heritagePotteryRidge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to a condition on the planning permission for development on land at St Margarets, Beacon Hill, Purfleet, Essex, the Heritage Network was commissioned by the developer to undertake an archaeological evaluation of the site. The evaluation of the site has revealed a single archaeological feature of potential medieval date, which is likely to represent a field boundary or other land division. The low number of finds, and the condition of the pottery recovered, suggests that the ditch is located some distance from settlement or domestic habitation. The Purfleet area is know to have potential for Palaeolithic remains to survive amid extensive river terrace gravels deposited on the north side of the chalk ridge known as the Purfleet Anticline. After consultation with a specialist palaeo-archaeologist, Peter Allen, it was established that the site lies on the southern side of this ridge, away from the gravel deposits. On the basis of the data gained in the course of this evaluation, the risk that the development might encounter further archaeological remains of medieval date is High, but the significance of those remains is likely to be Low. The risk of encountering remains of any other period is Low.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2140.017

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology Data ServiceSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207