Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-11 09:29:46 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2071F84CA9F6C57A32E5FE6137A06D7E9C282C90D0FF5DC03430E7F3DACAB30F
Participant Details

Original Note:

No note needed. Post expresses a factually correct claim that 50 studies were rejected. OP didn't state, as the CN assumes, that the rejected studies were peer-reviewed. OP expresses a clear opinion that the report is anti-science, which does not warrant a CN.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1778060114055852216
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 2071F84CA9F6C57A32E5FE6137A06D7E9C282C90D0FF5DC03430E7F3DACAB30F
  • createdAtMillis - 1712827786420
  • 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 - 17780601140558522162071F84CA9F6C57A32E5FE6137A06D7E9C282C90D0FF5DC03430E7F3DACAB30F