Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-23 06:02:38 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DAD842690122C126926E604226668BE692AE25E128EF742C42E2F781058470DC
Participant Details

Original Note:

Studies were not "arbitrarily ignored". As stated in the review there were concerns about sample size, representativeness of treatment and control groups, short follow-up and confounding factors. The authors still conclude that the evidence suggests psychological improvements. https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326670

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1782046876776214617
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - DAD842690122C126926E604226668BE692AE25E128EF742C42E2F781058470DC
  • createdAtMillis - 1713852158315
  • 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 - 1782046876776214617DAD842690122C126926E604226668BE692AE25E128EF742C42E2F781058470DC