Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-13 04:05:12 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 63FDA1CF0D929F821401854C1026753E6E1738E33CF62ED70696DC1D8F7DEA4A
Participant Details

Original Note:

Note must clarify the relationship between the source given and the Cass Review, as it is not one of the systematic reviews listed on page 47 of the Cass Review (which is likely the list referred to by the OP). Until this is clear the source does not support the note. https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1778997570553159718
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 63FDA1CF0D929F821401854C1026753E6E1738E33CF62ED70696DC1D8F7DEA4A
  • createdAtMillis - 1712981112275
  • 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 - 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 - 177899757055315971863FDA1CF0D929F821401854C1026753E6E1738E33CF62ED70696DC1D8F7DEA4A