Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-24 11:22:22 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 87B4FEDF5E9265DF9253D1679993374DDFC7FE35B453B9B4248D6E561C532355
Participant Details

Original Note:

While true that the article was retracted, it's also worth noting that it was due to an error in methodology, not because it was proven to be false. When corrected, it only affected several of the outcomes, and the increased household religiousness effect remained significant. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30670-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982216306704%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1771777005710700860
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 87B4FEDF5E9265DF9253D1679993374DDFC7FE35B453B9B4248D6E561C532355
  • createdAtMillis - 1711279342299
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 177177700571070086087B4FEDF5E9265DF9253D1679993374DDFC7FE35B453B9B4248D6E561C532355