Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-28 06:17:43 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 388E7CA00CF8E11E391D496FCCAC9A224C303BCF6BAAB1D6AF26B99F91485082
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 - 388E7CA00CF8E11E391D496FCCAC9A224C303BCF6BAAB1D6AF26B99F91485082
  • createdAtMillis - 1716877063675
  • 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 - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • 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 - 1795333095471653185388E7CA00CF8E11E391D496FCCAC9A224C303BCF6BAAB1D6AF26B99F91485082