Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-08 17:00:39 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4E5743C652F3801F461FE559BEEE741F7F016098F206E963AA11A47F6BFE437F
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN. CN should not mislead. This was one of the 5%. It had passed long full peer review, and was in electronic release pre-print. It is exceptionally rare for a paper to be withdrawn at this point. What was the "rigorous review process" that did this in only 24 hours?

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1677710348692987905
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4E5743C652F3801F461FE559BEEE741F7F016098F206E963AA11A47F6BFE437F
  • createdAtMillis - 1688835639327
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 16777103486929879054E5743C652F3801F461FE559BEEE741F7F016098F206E963AA11A47F6BFE437F