Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to a condition on the planning consent for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear of the existing building, enlargement of the existing patio and the excavation of new services following the demolition of an existing conservatory at 21 Moor End, Eaton Bray, Bedfordshire, the Heritage Network was commissioned by the owner to undertake a programme of archaeological monitoring of the groundworks. The monitoring of the groundworks for the new building revealed a disturbed stratigraphy consisting of layers of foundation and bedding material overlying the natural clay beneath the pre-existing conservatory and patio. Elsewhere on the site the stratigraphy consisted of undisturbed topsoil and subsoil overlying the natural clay. Two archaeological features were revealed during the ground reduction, comprising a linear ditch running east to west at the northern edge of the site, and a shallow pit, which was cut by the ditch. Service trenches were subsequently excavated, but not monitored, as agreed with the Archaeology Officer from Central Bedfordshire Council. The ditch is likely to represent an earlier alignment of the northern boundary to the property, which appears from the cartographic evidence to have been remodelled between 1860 and 1880. The pit is likely to be of earlier post-medieval date. No features, finds or deposits predating the post-medieval period were observed during this project.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.014 |
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".