Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-07-13 03:44:01 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D7FDEAC79533E49B5E1D37C3B5D65BCB207C028EE6A3887E56FFBB605900E1B7
Participant Details

Original Note:

最高裁判所の判決に含まれる補足意見に法的拘束力または法的効果はありません。 法的効果をもつのは法廷意見のみです。 補足意見、意見、反対意見の3種類がありますが、いずれも法廷意見(裁判官多数)とは異なるものであり、法的効力は無いことに注意が必要です。 詳しくは法律の専門家の解説をご覧ください。 https://wisteriabandel.com/20190311.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1811821042706546819
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D7FDEAC79533E49B5E1D37C3B5D65BCB207C028EE6A3887E56FFBB605900E1B7
  • createdAtMillis - 1720842241342
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1811821042706546819D7FDEAC79533E49B5E1D37C3B5D65BCB207C028EE6A3887E56FFBB605900E1B7