Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-07-13 08:42:55 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F61F1A519F68A0FEB677C3007FE98894A4203AEBACA7DEC5FA99104D34DCF185
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 - F61F1A519F68A0FEB677C3007FE98894A4203AEBACA7DEC5FA99104D34DCF185
  • createdAtMillis - 1689237775740
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1679375046056333312F61F1A519F68A0FEB677C3007FE98894A4203AEBACA7DEC5FA99104D34DCF185