Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-14 09:25:59 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2A301C42EF321D3B6F61C3B81D91C582171581EA92779237AC5421866ADA4A95
Participant Details

Original Note:

the "Cass Review" does what all scientific reviews should do: ask questions, be critical of the reliability of the papers and provide prudential indications in the absence of scientific certainties. https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1779407863678452208
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 2A301C42EF321D3B6F61C3B81D91C582171581EA92779237AC5421866ADA4A95
  • createdAtMillis - 1713086759277
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 17794078636784522082A301C42EF321D3B6F61C3B81D91C582171581EA92779237AC5421866ADA4A95