Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-16 07:29:43 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2516EBC16B28529F92E8EC6CD4DC8AF435C88350C758BE93677D4106911019FF
Participant Details

Original Note:

The Cass report is based on data from systematic reviews, qualitative and quantitative research, lived experience from focus groups, advocacy groups and service users, and input from professionals in the UK and abroad. The report is not based on non existent evidence. https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1779923580072993276
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 2516EBC16B28529F92E8EC6CD4DC8AF435C88350C758BE93677D4106911019FF
  • createdAtMillis - 1713252583852
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17799235800729932762516EBC16B28529F92E8EC6CD4DC8AF435C88350C758BE93677D4106911019FF