Heritage Assessment Statement of Significance at Church Farm, Abenhall, Mitcheldean, GL17 0DX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RDA were commissioned to assess and analyse the historic value and significance of Church Farm and Farm buildings GDII listed along with its setting. To summarise the phasing and significance, the only building to have not seen alterations inside and outside is the threshing barn, although a fire in 1869 meant a new roof was installed and more recently the stone threshing floor was removed. Externally the stone 1858 farm house is little altered and contains inside some Tudor gothic joinery details All other farm buildings listed GDII in their own right have been altered from the description in the listing text of 1985 " a fairly complete and little altered set of mid C19 farm buildings" However, this group is a good example of a planned farmstead buildings continue today, even with the alterations, to make a pleasing group of buildings with aesthetic and design value and are important in the local landscape. This report does include assessment of significance of the heritage asset and its surroundings and analysis of the historic fabric as found and could be seen on 17th December 2024 There was one site visit made on 17th December 2024 to access and take photographs, equivalent to a Level 2 Building Recording, [Ref Understanding Historic Buildings A Guide to Good Recording Practice Historic England May 2016] as a means of assessing the significance of Church Farm Abenhall. The historic building/s, Church Farm Abenhall have not been analysed or recorded to this level in the past, including features that have not been recorded since the list description. This means this building and listed outbuildings have not been fully understood or its significance realised. With reference to Statements of Heritage Significance: Analysing Significance in Heritage Assets October 2019 A significance level has been added for guidance based on Conservation Principles, English Heritage, 2008 p72 and a Statement of Heritage Significance provided by RDA. Aesthetic - designed value: farmhouse and farmstead designed architecturally in typical 19th century model farm style ,stone and slate, with an earlier date stone threshing barn, largely unaltered, earlier stone granary -converted in 1998 that with conversion has now diminished its original significance. All other farm buildings have been altered from the description in the listing text of 1985 " a fairly complete and little altered set of mid C19 farm buildings. Historical - illustrative value: the layout is illustrative of a former 19th century model farmhouse and farmstead although most interiors have changed and the cowhouses appearance with regard to the external openings have changed. Historical - associative value: the site has historical association with Edmund Probyn, a prominent local landowner and farmers from the Scudamore family, farmers in the 20th century, before changes to equine use in 1993. C19 Architects Girdwood and Thompson of London. However, this group is a good example of a planned farmstead buildings continue today, even with the alterations, to make a pleasing group of buildings with aesthetic and design value and are important in the local landscape. It is hoped this report has aided a planning application for changes and for the LPA to make an informed decision.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.126 | 0.030 |
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".