Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-06 17:42:39 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 87BA7C61A7E816CD49E41274D69D0A032FA9E5FBB4DE368B233D23BEBB1A7693
Participant Details

Original Note:

The Cass Review itself did not undergo a formal peer review process. However, the systematic reviews undertaken by the University of York to inform the Cass Review did. https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/#:~:text=The%20peer%2Dreviewed%20systematic%20evidence,the%20public%20and%20other%20stakeholders.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1787531183749751036
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 87BA7C61A7E816CD49E41274D69D0A032FA9E5FBB4DE368B233D23BEBB1A7693
  • createdAtMillis - 1715017359291
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 1
  • 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 - 178753118374975103687BA7C61A7E816CD49E41274D69D0A032FA9E5FBB4DE368B233D23BEBB1A7693