MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125260929 · doi:10.5284/1139190

Sowerby Bridge, West Yorkshire: Historic Area Assessment

2024· article· en· W7125260929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucy Jessop, Clare Howard, Chris Curtis

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Architecture and Urbanism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)MillBridge (graph theory)WharfExcavationRedevelopment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sowerby Bridge Historic Area Assessment (HAA) was undertaken in support of the Sowerby Bridge High Street Heritage Action Zone (HSHAZ), a government-backed scheme aimed at using the historic environment to drive growth in historic places. This report focuses on the main thoroughfare and historic town core, including the historic County Bridge, the south-east end of Hollins Mill Lane, the southern end of Tower Hill, Town Hall Street, Wharf Street and Old Cawsey, as far as the canal basin. It provides an overview of the town's history, development, character and value in order to inform key decisions about its future. As its name suggests, Sowerby Bridge, approximately 4.8km (2.3 miles) south-west of Halifax in the county of West Yorkshire, developed as a small hamlet around the crossing of the River Calder, particularly on the north bank. Documentary evidence suggests that the settlement started with a fulling mill and chapel located beside the bridge in the medieval period, although the river crossing may have been earlier. However, much of its architectural legacy relates to massive and rapid industrial growth in the 18th and 19th centuries which led to the settlement becoming a town by the mid-19th century.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology Data ServiceSame topicHistorical Architecture and UrbanismFrench-language works237,207