Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-03 17:16:34 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: A06B5AD46B03701EF43FB04C558CDC0992AAEB06F08262946CC30F2C94E14FD6
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is not how a systematic review is done. You cannot simply combine multiple studies on a spreadsheet without assessing quality of evidence. Taylor et al did carry out a proper review and found high quality evidence was lacking: https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326670 Other reviews reach similar conclusion: https://cass.independent-review.uk/nice-evidence-reviews/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1797606991889682457
participantId -
raterParticipantId - A06B5AD46B03701EF43FB04C558CDC0992AAEB06F08262946CC30F2C94E14FD6
createdAtMillis - 1717434994678
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 - 0
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
notHelpfulOutdated - 0
notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 1
notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
ratingsId - 1797606991889682457A06B5AD46B03701EF43FB04C558CDC0992AAEB06F08262946CC30F2C94E14FD6