Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-20 16:43:42 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 56D01CC096C44FD324FF006EAA3D98C7BB7974D9DAD5E59E04984B0C301595D8
Participant Details

Original Note:

Pages 52-54 alone show that multiple pieces of peer reviewed evidence were included. https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1781601192386117905
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 56D01CC096C44FD324FF006EAA3D98C7BB7974D9DAD5E59E04984B0C301595D8
  • createdAtMillis - 1713631422623
  • 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 - 0
  • 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 - 178160119238611790556D01CC096C44FD324FF006EAA3D98C7BB7974D9DAD5E59E04984B0C301595D8