Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-06 19:29:44 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 9FEF8881BEDADE153D7611FA5805025FE65F07D403C4D76D5059A372FBA33EE1
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 - 9FEF8881BEDADE153D7611FA5805025FE65F07D403C4D76D5059A372FBA33EE1
  • createdAtMillis - 1715023784414
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17875311837497510369FEF8881BEDADE153D7611FA5805025FE65F07D403C4D76D5059A372FBA33EE1