Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-20 05:24:43 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 682C5AD4FABA7069BB2ABE2DDC9314FB475B32F4978576541F55EEDD53BC0D54
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 - 682C5AD4FABA7069BB2ABE2DDC9314FB475B32F4978576541F55EEDD53BC0D54
  • createdAtMillis - 1713590683203
  • 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 - 1781438874738217322682C5AD4FABA7069BB2ABE2DDC9314FB475B32F4978576541F55EEDD53BC0D54