Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-22 20:39:50 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 77F3621FF8FA173FA4ACD668DF010C276EAE695AC375074FD5F7766FA71A337C
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 - 77F3621FF8FA173FA4ACD668DF010C276EAE695AC375074FD5F7766FA71A337C
  • createdAtMillis - 1719088790753
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 180434064720753903477F3621FF8FA173FA4ACD668DF010C276EAE695AC375074FD5F7766FA71A337C