Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-13 11:34:19 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DB13E7886F8EA816559284B89F0998843EE143C0A1724143FCFA1DFC683B70CE
Participant Details

Original Note:

There is no evidence to support that a large number of scientific work is fraudulent. Most articles that require retractions are published in low-impact journals. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34196235/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction_in_academic_publishing

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1679375046056333312
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - DB13E7886F8EA816559284B89F0998843EE143C0A1724143FCFA1DFC683B70CE
  • createdAtMillis - 1689248059860
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1679375046056333312DB13E7886F8EA816559284B89F0998843EE143C0A1724143FCFA1DFC683B70CE