The Military and âMob Ruleâ: The CEF Riots in Calgary, February 1916
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the First World War, unruly and ill-disciplined Canadian soldiers, on “assorted ’patriotic’ pretexts,” damaged local property and battled with local police forces in Victoria, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Campbellton, New Brunswick, and other Canadian centres. The riots in Calgary in February 1916 involved members of Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) battalions encamped near the city. While historians have focused on the anti-German nature of the attacks, several other considerations must be examined to explain the unlawful behaviour. Although a court of inquiry into the riot failed to conclude who was responsible, the contemporary evidence suggests strongly that soldiers, rather than civilians, started the disturbances. But what conditions allowed such behaviour to occur? The military context of the time offers insight. Recruitment, training and discipline were all factors, as was the nearness of the soldiers’ camp to Calgary. The military, however, denied responsibility, arguing that the culprits were “civilians” in uniform. By refusing to compensate the owners of local establishments for the damages caused during the riots, local and national military authorities made worse a problem they should have prevented.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".