Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-01 13:03:32 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 31A25F7B20EBF1CB0E9DFA31F3874DBE76905CA867088CAD24F914475AE410CF
Participant Details

Original Note:

Peer reviewing is a process that original academic research goes though. The Cass Review was not peer reviewed because it is a review of existing research on behalf of the NHS, not original academic research. Reviews are never peer reviewed. https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/index.html#

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1818912924879970473
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 31A25F7B20EBF1CB0E9DFA31F3874DBE76905CA867088CAD24F914475AE410CF
  • createdAtMillis - 1722517412268
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 1
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • 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 - 181891292487997047331A25F7B20EBF1CB0E9DFA31F3874DBE76905CA867088CAD24F914475AE410CF