Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-13 09:21:02 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1CE67599BD48A247C1AED559D0BE14902367AD102735438D1FF4A5E5D829FAA9
Participant Details

Original Note:

The graph fails to include a link to the public study, making it impossible to evaluate the methodology, sampling, or data collection processes. Consequently the graph isn't fully aligned with the actual claim. As such, no counter-argument is necessary for its rejection. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25303/reproducibility-and-replicability-in-science

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1822779243496947760
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 1CE67599BD48A247C1AED559D0BE14902367AD102735438D1FF4A5E5D829FAA9
  • createdAtMillis - 1723540862664
  • 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 - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 18227792434969477601CE67599BD48A247C1AED559D0BE14902367AD102735438D1FF4A5E5D829FAA9