Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-22 20:13:49 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 45A196465DD27DA469C88BC865E2FC0E0619116EC2D8C0116C1ADF3E15B48D5A
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN - Post makes a factually correct statement. The report was initially removed by The Lancet due to issues in the methodology used. Further work was done to align with appropriate methodology and is currently an accepted and peer reviewed article as of June 21, 2024. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968?via%3Dihub

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1804340647207539034
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 45A196465DD27DA469C88BC865E2FC0E0619116EC2D8C0116C1ADF3E15B48D5A
  • createdAtMillis - 1719087229218
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 180434064720753903445A196465DD27DA469C88BC865E2FC0E0619116EC2D8C0116C1ADF3E15B48D5A