Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-16 08:22:04 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 352AB163197BEA5D391593EB9519DC45ED12E49934346A5A8E01AABBDA0A9935
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 - 352AB163197BEA5D391593EB9519DC45ED12E49934346A5A8E01AABBDA0A9935
  • createdAtMillis - 1713255724670
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1779923580072993276352AB163197BEA5D391593EB9519DC45ED12E49934346A5A8E01AABBDA0A9935