Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-19 18:31:45 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 25A36A769DD1AFEC4EE69A1696909E1000FD93F2CEDDDA1A8BDE999EDED9E61E
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is false. The paper never passed peer-review as it is a preprint. This is even visible on the screenshot given in the post. The review it obtained from a panel of experts found that the "research was flawed." https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.33NL9BK

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1803453204144795954
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 25A36A769DD1AFEC4EE69A1696909E1000FD93F2CEDDDA1A8BDE999EDED9E61E
  • createdAtMillis - 1718821905762
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 180345320414479595425A36A769DD1AFEC4EE69A1696909E1000FD93F2CEDDDA1A8BDE999EDED9E61E