Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-20 00:37:35 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 5F3F15B8691C41AD4D9BBF0021077DEA0747330B5E8A38FF87D156E1999326FC
Participant Details

Original Note:

Cass was a systematic review. Part of the review critiqued all of the guidelines mentioned in the post and found serious deficiencies in all of them, including poor quality evidence and many circular references. That is why the Cass report contradicts them. https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1781438874738217322
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 5F3F15B8691C41AD4D9BBF0021077DEA0747330B5E8A38FF87D156E1999326FC
  • createdAtMillis - 1713573455454
  • 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 - 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 - 17814388747382173225F3F15B8691C41AD4D9BBF0021077DEA0747330B5E8A38FF87D156E1999326FC