MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6969229603 · doi:10.5284/1135359

Deepham's Sewage Works, Edmonton, Greater London Updated Geoarchaeological Deposit Model

2010· article· en· W6969229603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoreholeExcavationGeoarchaeologyContext (archaeology)DrillingScale (ratio)Geotechnical investigation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.205 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology Data ServiceSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207