Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-07-08 07:15:27 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C111EEE146D8697AC25051B2F430FE68514B9F795DD7966058472D31D4150CBE
Participant Details

Original Note:

The article is published in the 'Correspondence' section of The Lancet, which is dedicated to "Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters are not normally externally peer reviewed." https://www.thelancet.com/what-we-publish

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1810070984034275672
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - C111EEE146D8697AC25051B2F430FE68514B9F795DD7966058472D31D4150CBE
  • createdAtMillis - 1720422927237
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1810070984034275672C111EEE146D8697AC25051B2F430FE68514B9F795DD7966058472D31D4150CBE