MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162101864 · doi:10.5284/1142458

Barn at the Old Rectory Old Bury Road Alpheton Sudbury, Suffolk: Level 2 Historic Building Recording

2025· article· en· W7162101864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fraser White

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Architecture and Urbanism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)PhotographyRecord keepingFloor planThursdayDigital photographyHistorical recordSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Level 2 Building Record The historic building recording comprises a Level 2 record as set out in the Historic England guidance 'Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice' (2016). It is required in Condition 15 of planning permission DC/24/00574. Site Visit A site visit was completed on the 9th July 2025, this consisted of three main elements: a drawn, a photographic and a written record. Particular attention is paid to evidence of the former use of the building, and any evidence relating to the primary or historic use was recorded and interpreted to inform the overall understanding of the building. Drawn record The drawn record is based on existing plans provided by the client. This element includes items 2-3 of the Historic England guidance regarding 'the drawn record'. According to the Historic England Guidance a Level 2 record will typically consist of: sometimes item 1 or 2 and sometimes one or more of items 3-7. The drawings include a floor plan and elevations (Fig. 6). It also records the form and location of any structural features and/or detail of historic significance including any evidence for former fixtures and fittings. The existing measured elevations and floor plans with photo location points have been used to illustrate the report and have been checked for accuracy. Photographic record A digital photographic record has been compiled. Photography has been undertaken with a Canon 600D 20mpx TTL digital camera, in accordance with items 1, 2 and 4 of the Historic England guidance (HE 2016). The photographic record includes general views of the building, shots of the external appearance and the overall appearance of principal spaces and functional areas. Specific architectural details that relate to date, alteration, or function have been subject to more detailed photographic recording. Where surviving, external or internal detail (structural or decorative) relevant to the building's design, development and use has been photographed, with scale where appropriate. The photographic survey comprises digital images of the building and specific features of interest. Selected images have been converted to .jpeg format for use in the report. Appropriate levels of Metadata will be maintained and included in the digital archive following the approach set out in the aforementioned guidance. Appropriate scales are located in most archive photographs. However, where appropriate (i.e. where scaling can be seen from items within the view, or shots that may be used in publications), photographs without scales have also been taken. Written record The Level 2 written record is descriptive in its composition and includes the building location, the dates of the record and the name of the recorder. The written record is intended to supplement and support the other elements of the recording to provide an external and internal description of the building in terms of its architecture, setting, construction, development and use. The written record includes a brief summary of the building's historic and architectural context, based upon the site inspection and the historic research. This record includes the location of the building, a detailed description of the exterior and interior of the Building, and important features such as fixtures and fittings. The components of the written record are in-line with Items 1-3, 6 of the Historic England guidance (HE 2016). Historic research A programme of historic research was undertaken to enhance overall understanding of the history and development of the Building. This has been informed by secondary sources consulted at the Suffolk Archives and the Suffolk County Council Historic Environment Record (HER) as well as accessible published online sources. The report includes a map regression to illustrate the development of the building.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology Data ServiceSame topicHistorical Architecture and UrbanismFrench-language works237,207