Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-06 18:25:46 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1185EA25AAF780C0041FFDA5BE585B41E3E8DDACF86802E1020994449E26D581
Participant Details

Original Note:

It's perplexing why @Nature would feature the unimpressive views of an unknown individual. This serves as a clear illustration of the prestigious journal's failure to consider the author's "conflict of interest." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351978730_Growth_of_Indian_Research_in_Science_and_Technology_A_Scientometric_Analysis

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1787005295278928366
participantId -
raterParticipantId - 1185EA25AAF780C0041FFDA5BE585B41E3E8DDACF86802E1020994449E26D581
createdAtMillis - 1715019946698
version - 2
agree - 0
disagree - 0
helpful - 0
notHelpful - 0
helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
helpfulOther - 0
helpfulInformative - 0
helpfulClear - 0
helpfulEmpathetic - 0
helpfulGoodSources - 0
helpfulUniqueContext - 0
helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
helpfulImportantContext - 0
helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
notHelpfulOther - 0
notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
notHelpfulOutdated - 0
notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
ratingsId - 17870052952789283661185EA25AAF780C0041FFDA5BE585B41E3E8DDACF86802E1020994449E26D581