Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-09 13:03:36 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 7EC30EA62DC00474E21E78C64E50734FD1B71ED2167845AB12135172348D7F2F
Participant Details

Original Note:

The proposed note that claims that the Cass review is itself a peer review is incorrect. The review is a series of systematic reviews, which are not the same thing and as such the Cass report still requires peer review: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-systematic-reviews-and-peer-reviews https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1821586871966646423
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 7EC30EA62DC00474E21E78C64E50734FD1B71ED2167845AB12135172348D7F2F
  • createdAtMillis - 1723208616600
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - 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 - 18215868719666464237EC30EA62DC00474E21E78C64E50734FD1B71ED2167845AB12135172348D7F2F