MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6969377607 · doi:10.5284/1094748

An Archaeological Landscape Survey of Sheffield Park Gardens, East Sussex

2015· article· en· W6969377607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoreField surveyClearingBoundary (topology)InfantryNational parkSurvey methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The survey area in Sheffield Park covered the majority of the two military camps which accommodated parts of the 3rd and 4th Canadian Infantry Divisions. The Fletching Camp was primarily the home to three of the four Batteries of the 5th Anti-Tank Regiment, of the 4th Division. The Lewes Road Camp appears to have been the home of the 12th Field Regiment RCA, of the 3rd Division. The Survey has identified significant elements of the Fletching Camp, also it has established there are areas to the south which still exist. The eastern boundary of the camp has not been firmly established and likely lies beyond the survey area. It is recommended that the survey be extended to record the remaining elements of the camp. Elements of the Lewes Road Camp were identified along the south-western shore of Lower Woman's Pond. More elements of this camp exist eastwards, beyond the current survey, and it is recommended that the survey be extended. The aim of the survey in Walk Wood was to identify what remains of the original 17th/18th century Ornamental Walks as part of a National Trust project to restore and open these to the public. Sections of four of these original walks were identified, but later replanting and the use of brash to mark out the paths means most are either hidden from view or have been lost. Those that have been identified should be incorporated into the new public walkways and the survey extended once clearing operations have commenced.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology Data ServiceSame topicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207