Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-28 14:41:16 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2094A10A18B43199AD94F91E4461208256E9D29A398A0FF7617FB497FED28B9A
Participant Details

Original Note:

The other note should definitely be included here. The telegraph article 'neglects' to mention the low number of participants and lack of feasible verification methods, and this is important context to understanding how meaningful and conclusive this research is. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00192-024-05779-3

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1795333095471653185
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 2094A10A18B43199AD94F91E4461208256E9D29A398A0FF7617FB497FED28B9A
  • createdAtMillis - 1716907276806
  • 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 - 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 - 17953330954716531852094A10A18B43199AD94F91E4461208256E9D29A398A0FF7617FB497FED28B9A