Southampton French Quarter 1382 Specialist Report Download F8: Glass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A very substantial assemblage of glass was recovered from the excavations in the French Quarter and, although it is often highly fragmented, it is the most important assemblage of its kind to have been excavated in the last decade. Historically Southampton has produced the finest collections of late medieval and early post-medieval vessel glass outside of London. The late Robert Charleston ' s analysis of the glass recovered from excavations undertaken in the town between 1953-69 still remains one of the key reference works on glass of this period (Charleston 1975), and the excavations in the French Quarter compliment and extend this report. It is interesting to note that many of the groups encountered mirror those from earlier excavations, and for the later medieval period it is clear that Southampton had its own distinct patterns of glass consumption. Because of the size of the assemblage, and the high degree of fragmentation in some layers, not every piece of glass is discussed in this report. Instead the material is discussed by tenement area either concentrating on specific groups from well-defined contexts or occasional vessels of exceptional quality. Tenement 167 Miscellaneous contexts- Late 15th-early 16th century Very little glass of interest came from contexts within this tenement, perhaps confirming its status as a
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.708 | 0.174 |
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".