Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-20 06:56:19 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 9616C7C916746DBD6A615F615B0C16F421DC314EE3E85FE385853B3254CC01A7
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 - 9616C7C916746DBD6A615F615B0C16F421DC314EE3E85FE385853B3254CC01A7
  • createdAtMillis - 1713596179567
  • 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 - 17814388747382173229616C7C916746DBD6A615F615B0C16F421DC314EE3E85FE385853B3254CC01A7