MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134818737 · doi:10.5284/1139833

Land to the r/o The Royal George, 57 High Street, Stagsden, Archaeological Evaluation

2010· article· en· W7134818737 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Ashworth

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Architecture and Urbanism
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrenchDemolitionGeorge (robot)BrickNatural (archaeology)Terrace (agriculture)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to determine the archaeological risk posed by a proposal to develop land at The Royal George PH, 57 High Street, Stagsden Bedfordshire, the Heritage Network was commissioned by the developers to undertake a programme of archaeological evaluation. Four trial trenches were opened across the proposed development area. The investigation showed that the southern side of the site has been subject to post-medieval and modern disturbance. The majority of the dateable features encountered on the site were of the modern period. These include two postholes in Trench 1, cuts [102] and [105], demolition debris and modern disturbance in Trench 2 and the car park surface, contexts (400) and (401) for the former Royal George public house in Trench 4. The remaining features and layers, including cut [303] in Trench 3 and layer (403) in Trench 4 appear to date to the post-medieval period, indicated by the presence of brick fragments in both the upper fill of [303] and in layer (403). Two possible natural features were also observed in Trench 1, cuts [104] and [107]. These are likely to represent root action in the rear garden of the former public house.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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