MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381856437 · doi:10.1177/14613557231182298

How emergency response teams access tactical armoured vehicles in Canada

2023· article· en· W4381856437 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zachary Towns, Rosemary Ricciardelli, Kevin Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Police Science & Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementService (business)BusinessPublic relationsMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As Canadian police services rely on their emergency response teams (ERT) to respond to different calls for service, their reliance also requires police services to possess the equipment necessary to support their ERT. Since 2004, an ongoing trend remains that police services procure tactical armoured vehicles (TAVs) for their ERTs. In the current article, we explore trends in the procurement of TAVs by Canadian police services comparatively, drawing on two distinct data sets. The first is a content analysis derived from news media and the second is the result of a survey of ERTs across Canadian police services. Our purpose is to explore different trends in the procurement of TAVs by police services, looking comparatively at secondary sources and primary data to better understand the composition of ERTs, the positioning of TAVs within tactical policing and shed light on whether some TAVs are procured more often than others. Discussion centres on the relationship between TAVs and ERT –the need versus desire for TAVs – as well as how policing needs are interpreted and impacted by calls to defund the police.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Police Science & ManagementSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207