Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-01 08:55:12 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: FAC749499FAB3E339FFAA9B7078C2D70DFFA0B5F7F6793840FC97C8D3FABFBEA
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 The Cass Review was not peer reviewed because it is a review of existing research on behalf of the NHS, not original academic research.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 - FAC749499FAB3E339FFAA9B7078C2D70DFFA0B5F7F6793840FC97C8D3FABFBEA
  • createdAtMillis - 1722502512231
  • 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 - 1818912924879970473FAC749499FAB3E339FFAA9B7078C2D70DFFA0B5F7F6793840FC97C8D3FABFBEA