Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-15 17:44:35 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 397C51182FE8196694D5FCDD4CA8292F7B2D42F184EA2526661AA66F455DD4F6
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 - 397C51182FE8196694D5FCDD4CA8292F7B2D42F184EA2526661AA66F455DD4F6
  • createdAtMillis - 1713203075236
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1779923580072993276397C51182FE8196694D5FCDD4CA8292F7B2D42F184EA2526661AA66F455DD4F6