Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-14 12:16:01 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: A05564CEC73A9AD5B29FDF5D03EF89ED28C5215B379EA8C6679B22D70C023698
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 - A05564CEC73A9AD5B29FDF5D03EF89ED28C5215B379EA8C6679B22D70C023698
  • createdAtMillis - 1713096961472
  • 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 - 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 - 1778997570553159718A05564CEC73A9AD5B29FDF5D03EF89ED28C5215B379EA8C6679B22D70C023698