Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-08 19:07:44 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 77D9626939D6A6D75CB956C8A4A50DDF62D06DCB274B03CD164DBD4C599349D0
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 It is exceptionally rare for a paper to be withdrawn at this point.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 - 77D9626939D6A6D75CB956C8A4A50DDF62D06DCB274B03CD164DBD4C599349D0
  • createdAtMillis - 1688843264965
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 167771034869298790577D9626939D6A6D75CB956C8A4A50DDF62D06DCB274B03CD164DBD4C599349D0