Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-12 01:47:13 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 65819ADEDD7BCBC648E5EF6A57C7573CD54A76478EF570D4824E8199030F7912
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 - 65819ADEDD7BCBC648E5EF6A57C7573CD54A76478EF570D4824E8199030F7912
  • createdAtMillis - 1723427233574
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • 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 - 182277924349694776065819ADEDD7BCBC648E5EF6A57C7573CD54A76478EF570D4824E8199030F7912