The 2011 Stanley Cup Riot: police perspectives and lessons learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine crowd violence in relation to the 2011 Stanley Cup Riot from the perspective of those police officers who were involved in the event, and identify any lessons that can be learned from this incident. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 460 Vancouver police officers participated in this study. Police perceptions of the riot were elicited via mailed questionnaires, which focused on key themes related to crowd disorder and police response, including preparations, deployment, training, safety, causes, and future prevention. Questionnaire responses were analyzed using descriptive approaches and one-sample t-tests. Findings – The study findings revealed that, in general, police felt ill-prepared prior to the riot, and ill- and unsafe during the riot. Their responses also suggested that their negative perceptions of the riot were the result of a few prominent factors, namely inadequate deployment, a lack of operational planning, and the presence of a large and belligerent crowd. Research limitations/implications – This study represents an important first step in understanding the issues associated with preventing and containing disorderly crowds from the perspective of police officers. Although valuable, this study does have a few limitations, including post hoc data collection. Practical implications – This study provides important insights into the causes of riots and the particular difficulties officers face during the course of a riot. These insights may be used by departments to assist with planning and preparations related to preventing riots and effectively limiting crowd disorder. Originality/value – This is the first study to examine police perceptions in a Canadian context. It utilizes a comparatively large sample, and is among the very few studies that includes the views of officers who have actually experienced a riot.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".