M25 J28 Improvements, London Borough of Havering; Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fieldwork followed the methodology set out in the individual WSIs (CA 2023a-c) and the overarching WSI for the improvement scheme (Highways England 2021). Archaeological investigations were undertaken across two CIR areas (2 and 3), totalling 0.07ha (Figs 3, 7 and 8). In agreement with GLAAS, CIR 1 was removed from the programme of archaeological works. Additionally, 25 areas (WB1/2, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000 and 10000) totalling approximately 8.12ha were subject to a programme of observation, investigation and recording undertaken during the construction works (Figs 3-8). These were carried out under watching brief (WB) conditions and are referred to as 'WB' sites throughout the remainder of the report. Nine test pits (TP1-TP9) were also monitored in WB1/2 though each was devoid of archaeology, recording only alluvium and natural substrate layers (Figs 3 and 8). A programme of archaeological investigation was undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology between January and November 2023. This comprised 17 watching brief (WB) areas and two Construction Integrated Recording (CIR) areas. The work was undertaken on behalf of John Graham Construction Ltd (GRAHAM). The earliest evidence for land-use within the scheme comprised two concentrations of Iron Age features identified in WB1/2 and WB300, comprising ditches, pits and postholes. Evidence for post-medieval activity was identified in two of the WB areas (500 and 800), comprising two ditches which correspond well to field boundaries depicted on 19th century mapping. Additionally, one modern pit was identified in WB10000 and four undated pits were identified in CIR 2, WB400 and WB10000. No features corresponding to the Roman or medieval periods were identified during the mostrecent phases of archaeological investigations; however, features of these dates were identified within the overall improvement scheme. This document presents an updated project design for a programme of post-excavation analysis to bring the results from all phases of investigation to appropriate publication.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.009 |
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".