Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-18 13:25:24 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 61A969F941D134AC87666E580DCF9BE5825210DF33B8E3899FFC1E0AEA1AEAC6
Participant Details

Original Note:

The Cass Review rated over 100 relevant studies for quality & risk of bias. Only 2% of the studies met the criteria for the highest quality rating, but all high & medium quality (50%+ of the studies) studies were further analysed to inform the Review’s recommendations. https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1780950281699655837
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 61A969F941D134AC87666E580DCF9BE5825210DF33B8E3899FFC1E0AEA1AEAC6
  • createdAtMillis - 1713446724594
  • 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 - 178095028169965583761A969F941D134AC87666E580DCF9BE5825210DF33B8E3899FFC1E0AEA1AEAC6