Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-20 15:29:02 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: EFE685C3416BF25AA3F7CB1F5D2C752DA0E06E57C96FE68ACC7392208352DDBE
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 - EFE685C3416BF25AA3F7CB1F5D2C752DA0E06E57C96FE68ACC7392208352DDBE
  • createdAtMillis - 1713626942300
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1780950281699655837EFE685C3416BF25AA3F7CB1F5D2C752DA0E06E57C96FE68ACC7392208352DDBE