Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-15 08:45:20 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 7E62AB98E8CA2BD03529D55CB3E91BE3CF676634309C6CDD00EED59A22C0799F
Participant Details

Original Note:

While the opinion mostly concerns sovereign immunity and doesn't resolve the whole case, it does say: "FDA is not a physician"; thus, on the "merits," it was "plausibl[e]" that the FDA's advice was beyond its authority. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9424279/apter-v-dept-of-health-human-svc/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1698407004824621410
participantId -
raterParticipantId - 7E62AB98E8CA2BD03529D55CB3E91BE3CF676634309C6CDD00EED59A22C0799F
createdAtMillis - 1705308320209
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 - 1
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 - 16984070048246214107E62AB98E8CA2BD03529D55CB3E91BE3CF676634309C6CDD00EED59A22C0799F