Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-01 08:33:33 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 9B041946D4719A9BE652E1C9FFEF35B3075A86D69A7524C46AE5C5AA256B049B
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 The Cass Review was not peer reviewed because it is a review of existing research on behalf of the NHS, not original academic research.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 - 9B041946D4719A9BE652E1C9FFEF35B3075A86D69A7524C46AE5C5AA256B049B
  • createdAtMillis - 1722501213021
  • 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 - 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 - 18189129248799704739B041946D4719A9BE652E1C9FFEF35B3075A86D69A7524C46AE5C5AA256B049B