Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-16 02:07:47 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C4887B203F4F1A3592DEE0CB836342EE593BE0AC2508F440EE7DAAFD43AE29B1
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 - C4887B203F4F1A3592DEE0CB836342EE593BE0AC2508F440EE7DAAFD43AE29B1
  • createdAtMillis - 1713233267464
  • 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 - 1779923580072993276C4887B203F4F1A3592DEE0CB836342EE593BE0AC2508F440EE7DAAFD43AE29B1