Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-08-21 10:11:41 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: FC2A3A398C88C67034720D6268D945248EF8AF94BA33CB1CF36879F558A4FE10
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 - FC2A3A398C88C67034720D6268D945248EF8AF94BA33CB1CF36879F558A4FE10
  • createdAtMillis - 1692612701631
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • 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 - 1693472607490945134FC2A3A398C88C67034720D6268D945248EF8AF94BA33CB1CF36879F558A4FE10