MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134229613 · doi:10.5284/1139816

Langley Pool Cottage, Lindridge Road, Sutton Coldfield: Historic Building Record 2024-25

2025· article· en· W7134229613 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ric Tyler

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Architecture and Urbanism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusQuarter (Canadian coin)Plan (archaeology)Block (permutation group theory)StairsNova scotiaGround floor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1560.036

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicHistorical Architecture and UrbanismFrench-language works237,207