Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-25 02:39:34 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D80BD5893DE916D40D93B73ABB33252C1570AA76F74CCFB93504581C5927CE01
Participant Details

Original Note:

Esta encuesta carece de rigor científico y muestra un sesgo que beneficia propuestas especificas, haciéndola obsoleta para identificar afinidades políticas reales. https://blog.scielo.org/es/2021/02/05/rigor-cientifico-y-ciencia-abierta-desafios-eticos-y-metodologicos-en-la-investigacion-cualitativa/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1783287307992261024
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D80BD5893DE916D40D93B73ABB33252C1570AA76F74CCFB93504581C5927CE01
  • createdAtMillis - 1714012774048
  • 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 - 1783287307992261024D80BD5893DE916D40D93B73ABB33252C1570AA76F74CCFB93504581C5927CE01