Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-22 02:42:10 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4A25061A7C2ED3DD00E3AEC1543C8A818E2D4BB22739202F866042AAB5D440CA
Participant Details

Original Note:

The only study making this claim was retracted https://link.springer.com/article/10.1631/jzus.2003.0236

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1804226785523175779
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4A25061A7C2ED3DD00E3AEC1543C8A818E2D4BB22739202F866042AAB5D440CA
  • createdAtMillis - 1719024130347
  • 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 - 18042267855231757794A25061A7C2ED3DD00E3AEC1543C8A818E2D4BB22739202F866042AAB5D440CA