Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-21 07:15:19 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1ECF6AB3EF5266B0FE9C4402964D6DB8DC4272D776DB14DAAA7E94C15718992E
Participant Details

Original Note:

Stone is correct that the Cass review has been criticized by organizations who view medicine from a social justice perspective. However, Cass is in line with other evidence based medicine approaches: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.16791 Cass did not discard studies to cherry pick, but followed a protocol: https://twitter.com/benryanwriter/status/1779306273701339548

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1780734373848830037
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 1ECF6AB3EF5266B0FE9C4402964D6DB8DC4272D776DB14DAAA7E94C15718992E
  • createdAtMillis - 1713683719801
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 17807343738488300371ECF6AB3EF5266B0FE9C4402964D6DB8DC4272D776DB14DAAA7E94C15718992E