Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-10-20 05:58:19 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 07FA10B6DA9DFC2233FFBE972DFE836FD9437BD1E623F248E473F6CDBF4510CA
Participant Details

Original Note:

From the Discussion section of the Nature article used as evidence (linked above). "Our analyses should not be interpreted as an assessment of severity of a second infection versus that of a first infection"

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1696556070330859755
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 07FA10B6DA9DFC2233FFBE972DFE836FD9437BD1E623F248E473F6CDBF4510CA
  • createdAtMillis - 1729403899695
  • 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 - 1
  • 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 - 169655607033085975507FA10B6DA9DFC2233FFBE972DFE836FD9437BD1E623F248E473F6CDBF4510CA