MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7134832647 · doi:10.5284/1139822

HN545/WA13 Abbey Mills, Waltham Abbey, Essex: Archaeological Evaluation Report

2005· article· en· W7134832647 on OpenAlexaff
A Rothwell, C Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrickExcavationArchaeological evidenceHearthEarthworksWorld heritageIndustrial archaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to determine the archaeological risk posed by a proposal to build new flats and offices at Abbey Mills, Waltham Abbey, the Heritage Network was commissioned by the owners to undertake a programme of archaeological evaluation. The ground had been severely disturbed by modern activity, including the site's past use as a scrap yard. The site is also prone to waterlogging because of the close location of the now canalised River Lee. Despite this, evidence of archaeological activity was identified, which took the form of a pit containing a large collection of cattle horncores, possibly linked with the 18th century tannery or hornery seen on the neighbouring site to the east. Evidence of boundary walls and elements of the steam mill, which formerly occupied the southern half of the site, particularly a possible chimney base and a brick tank, survive below the present ground surface. The remains of post-medieval and Victorian structures dating from 18th century were identified, increasing in density through the 19th century, when the steam mill was established.

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)0.002
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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.003

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies→French-language works237,207→