Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-04 21:26:39 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 247FE020039E494AA95E03A3240C11BA73A96C45451AD116BC8972A1E30FD30A
Participant Details

Original Note:

multiple experts, medical professionals & scholars have shown that the Cass Report has overt prejudice, pathologisation, poor & inconsistent use of evidence, non-evidenced claims, & the intentional exclusion of service users and trans healthcare experts from the Review process. https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1786840461388210319
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 247FE020039E494AA95E03A3240C11BA73A96C45451AD116BC8972A1E30FD30A
  • createdAtMillis - 1714857999948
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • 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 - 1786840461388210319247FE020039E494AA95E03A3240C11BA73A96C45451AD116BC8972A1E30FD30A