Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-29 17:03:37 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 745A5ED107FBAC3B3BF0DE5E7CC2CC4345F61E841987FAEFE2A2301894776261
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 - 745A5ED107FBAC3B3BF0DE5E7CC2CC4345F61E841987FAEFE2A2301894776261
  • createdAtMillis - 1717002217876
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • 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 - 1795333095471653185745A5ED107FBAC3B3BF0DE5E7CC2CC4345F61E841987FAEFE2A2301894776261