Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-28 19:38:46 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: E15709172318A99ACA45D4BF37935AB8AE857DA23941832AA3728713EB01EF01
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 - E15709172318A99ACA45D4BF37935AB8AE857DA23941832AA3728713EB01EF01
  • createdAtMillis - 1716925126494
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1795333095471653185E15709172318A99ACA45D4BF37935AB8AE857DA23941832AA3728713EB01EF01