Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-13 19:57:25 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D823A784F3814655E56E73D9C72D6E9DB5C99BD56F982C669D40C2363F856F12
Participant Details

Original Note:

The notes clearly lack the technical knowledge on the topic. For example, the Cass review *does* exclude studies because they were not blinded. A lot of the noters don't understand how to read technical reviews.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1779002483094028685
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D823A784F3814655E56E73D9C72D6E9DB5C99BD56F982C669D40C2363F856F12
  • createdAtMillis - 1713038245675
  • 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 - 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 - 1779002483094028685D823A784F3814655E56E73D9C72D6E9DB5C99BD56F982C669D40C2363F856F12