Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to investigate the archaeological potential of a proposed new extension and refurbishment of the Former Roecroft Lower School, Stotfold, Bedfordshire, the Heritage Network was commissioned by the developer to undertake a programme of targeted trial trenching. The development entailed the repositioning of existing modular buildings and the extension and refurbishment of existing permanent buildings. All intrusive groundworks associated with the development were completed before the present programme of archaeological work was commissioned. The investigation was intended to clarify the archaeological potential of the site and assess the likelihood that archaeological remains of significance were damaged or destroyed by the groundworks programme. Three trial trenches were excavated across areas chosen by the CBC and were located to the rear of the school buildings. They revealed a layer of modern overburden, above subsoil, which overlay the undisturbed natural substrate. Four cut features were encountered in two of the trenches. Of these, two represented field drainage gullies of medieval and late post-medieval date, one appeared to be a large posthole and the third the remains of a possible hedgerow. On this basis, the risks that the proposed development might disturb archaeological remains of any significance may be considered to be Moderate for the medieval and post-medieval periods and Low for all other periods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".