The Tree-Ring Dating of the Tower and Spire at Salisbury Cathedral, Wiltshire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty-three timbers were sampled from the tower and spire at Salisbury Cathedral during 1990, and a further 32 timbers sampled during 2003 and 2004. Four major elements were sampled and dated: the reset floor structure at the base of the clock chamber with felling dates of spring and summer AD 1242 were found, the Baltic oak ceiling boards to this floor structure with a felling date range of AD 1358-74, the spire scaffold with a felling date range of AD 1344-76, and the timber support tower in the bell chamber underneath the spire with a felling date range of AD 1687-1719. A number of thirteenth and seventeenth century reused timbers were also found in the timber support tower and spire scaffold itself. The analysis resulted in four replicated site chronologies being produced: the 175-ring site master SARUM14 spanning the years AD 1067-1241, the 238-ring site master SARUM15 spanning the years AD 1117-1354, the 110-ring site master SARUM16 spanning the years AD 1229-1338, and the 129-ring site master SARUM17 spanning the years AD 1556-1684. The dating of the spire scaffold to the third quarter of the fourteenth century is contrary to most established theories on architectural the development of the tower and spire. Whilst the architectural detailing of the decoration confirms that the tower and stone spire were constructed in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, detailed analysis of the structure and documentary material supports the conclusion that the spire scaffold was subsequently inserted within the spire half a century later. This was most probably to repair damage sustained by the top of the spire in AD 1362, and to give permanent internal access to the top of the spire and to give some tensile restraint to the capstone.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".