Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-08-21 10:20:44 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2F0BD0898189C3910F3AC85C5B28D413293CA0E220C49AEC5ABB72DF7CE6FED8
Participant Details

Original Note:

There is no evidence to support this claim. Out of the 33,712 signatories, the authors emailed 143, received contributions from 37, and spoke with 21. The authors wrote that their study is “suffering from an exceptionally small sample size and unabashed sampling bias.” https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.00891

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1693472607490945134
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 2F0BD0898189C3910F3AC85C5B28D413293CA0E220C49AEC5ABB72DF7CE6FED8
  • createdAtMillis - 1692613244725
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 16934726074909451342F0BD0898189C3910F3AC85C5B28D413293CA0E220C49AEC5ABB72DF7CE6FED8