Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-08-19 05:48:00 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: E11C9C9F3EAAB8DAEAE75A7BD583E3C28115F8E5DF5EBA766A0CED72E3BD2672
Participant Details

Original Note:

No se necesita ninguna nota, es una opinion personal y esta comentando sobre un caso particular, no hizo ninguna generalizacion sobre el CONICET sino sobre estudios especificos. NNN.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1692704431010144385
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - E11C9C9F3EAAB8DAEAE75A7BD583E3C28115F8E5DF5EBA766A0CED72E3BD2672
  • createdAtMillis - 1692424080250
  • 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 - 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 - 0
  • ratingsId - 1692704431010144385E11C9C9F3EAAB8DAEAE75A7BD583E3C28115F8E5DF5EBA766A0CED72E3BD2672