Langley Pool Cottage, Lindridge Road, Sutton Coldfield: Historic Building Record 2024-25
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre-demolition record of building by measured survey and photography Langley Pool Cottage lies to the north side of Lindridge Road, opposite the junction with Springfield Road, c.3km ENE of the centre of Sutton Coldfield and 12.5km north-east of Birmingham city centre. The building occupies an L-shaped plan, comprising a main block of two window bays, aligned parallel to Lindridge Road, and a short, perpendicular rear wing extending from the west end of the north elevation. It is brick-built throughout, of two-storeys beneath fully pitched and gabled roofs, with opposing, shallowly-projecting brick gable-stacks to the east and west ends of the main block. Internally, the main block is divided transversely on an asymmetrical, two-part plan with rooms to east and west occupying approximately 1/3 and 2/3 respectively of the floor plan at both ground and first floor level. The rear wing accommodates a simple, dog-leg stair rising from a small entrance lobby. Langley Pool Cottage represents a simple, solidly-built if unremarkable example of a 19th-century rural domestic dwelling of relatively modest status, with 19th-century records indicating occupation by agricultural labourers. Though recorded on the BCC HER as 'an 18th or early 19th century house', the evidence of historical mapping clearly suggests a date in the second half of the 19th century for the original construction of the property, being absent from the land valuation map and accompanying schedule of 1857, and is first recorded by name in census returns of 1881. This is broadly supported by the physical evidence of the recorded fabric, with nothing of note to suggest an earlier date; indeed nothing of architectural or historical significance survives within the building, which has clearly been subject to historical phases of modification and has been severely impacted by recent usage. The presence of a combined pigsty/privy within the garden of the property is an interesting survival.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".