Deepham's Sewage Works, Edmonton, Greater London Updated Geoarchaeological Deposit Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Watching Brief: A continuous watching brief was maintained during ground works which included the monitoring of surface stripping, cut and fill operations, and deeper trenching. A daily record of the nature, extent and depth of groundworks was maintained throughout the duration of the project. Digital and black-and-white negative photograph records were taken of all sections, excavations and archaeological features. Excavation of any archaeological features was undertaken to fulfil the basic objective of retrieval of archaeological data affected by the works. All features and deposits were issued with unique context numbers, and context recording as in accordance with the established OA Field Manual (Wilkinson 1992). All contexts and small finds were allocated unique numbers. Bulk finds were collected by context. Site plans were drawn at an appropriate scale (normally 1:50 or 1:100) with larger scale plans of features as necessary. Section drawings of features and trenches were drawn at a scale of 1:20. Borehole Survey: Eight geotechnical boreholes were undertaken on behalf of Thames Water within the Deepham's Sewage Works. Three of the boreholes (BHMW1, BHMW2, and BHMW8) were identified as requiring specialist geoarchaeological monitoring due to the fact they were located on either the floodplain or its margins. The five remaining boreholes were all located on the gravel terrace (BHMW3-BHMW7) which initially produced very similar sequences. Consequently only two of these boreholes were monitored (BHMW3 and BHMW7). The borehole locations are illustrated in Figure 2. The drilling was undertaken by Structural Soils Ltd and samples were retrieved as disturbed stratified bulk samples using a shell and auger cable percussion rig. At each sampling location an OA geoarchaeologist monitored the drilling and logged the samples on-site. The sediment sequence in each borehole was recorded on a summary proforma sheet which included information on sample numbers and location with reference to Ordnance Datum and the National Grid. The sediments were logged according to Jones et al 1999 The Description and Analysis of Quaternary Stratigraphic Field Sections, Technical Guide No 7, Quaternary Research Association 1999, and included information about depth, texture, composition, colour, clast orientation, structure (bedding, ped characteristics etc) and contacts between deposits. Note was also made of any visible ecofactual, or artefactual inclusions e.g. pottery, daub or charcoal fragments. Samples for further description and/or palaeoenvironmental remains were retrieved opportunistically. Watching Brief: In May 2010 Oxford Archaeology South (OAS) were commissioned by Thames Water Utilities Ltd, to maintain an archaeological watching brief during the upgrade of the sewage treatment facility at Deepham's Sewage Works, Edmonton, Greater London. The purpose of the field investigation was to mitigate the impacts of the development. This work forms part of a wider archaeological investigation strategy within the area of the site, aimed at assessing the archaeological preservation and potential of the sewage works. Previous investigations have included floodplain modelling and desk-based assessment, which indicated that the area has a high archaeological potential. However, subsequent targeted field evaluations to the south of the site have failed to identify any signs of archaeology, and have revealed significant ground disturbance. The most recent phases of work in the sewage works have identified preserved floodplain deposits, including peat and alluvial deposits sealed under thick madeground deposits. An updated deposit model has also indicated areas of preserved floodplain deposits to the east and south, with signs of modern truncation on the gravel terrace to the west, where the current site is located.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".