Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-13 11:53:17 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 33BA6EC1D38956FFBBC5A8358D1F2164A13BFA6AE2FA823FA335827A82A990C5
Participant Details

Original Note:

https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000001971.20 The author provided legitimate scientific literature. However, they were either unable to or refused to interpret the results of the study accurately, and instead fixated on a narrow set of data rather than represent the results accurately.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1767739083550609611
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 33BA6EC1D38956FFBBC5A8358D1F2164A13BFA6AE2FA823FA335827A82A990C5
  • createdAtMillis - 1710330797333
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 176773908355060961133BA6EC1D38956FFBBC5A8358D1F2164A13BFA6AE2FA823FA335827A82A990C5