Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-08-16 16:12:09 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 9B501FE36F642122EBEADCCB13E5332E3E597FD3FDCF7932ABACE082886D07CD
Participant Details

Original Note:

L'affirmation dans le tweet est incorrecte. L'étude en question ne mentionne pas l'utilisation d'eau par les scientifiques pour tester les protections menstruelles. L'étude se concentre sur les différentes méthodes de protection en termes d'absorption en utilisant du sang. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37550075/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1691792840022458680
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 9B501FE36F642122EBEADCCB13E5332E3E597FD3FDCF7932ABACE082886D07CD
  • createdAtMillis - 1692202329393
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 16917928400224586809B501FE36F642122EBEADCCB13E5332E3E597FD3FDCF7932ABACE082886D07CD