Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-02-12 14:21:19 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 794A92B2BAE2D10119780BE18F00A292266679BC7412C4665EA6B5E4EB1AE7F5
Participant Details

Original Note:

Les deux séries sont corrélées par nature aux mêmes événements car c'est la même actualité qui provoque les vagues de tweet et les réaction. Pour que l'étude ait un sens il aurait fallu calculer la corrélation vs d'autres groupes de mots/d'utilisateurs. https://www.jmp.com/fr_ca/statistics-knowledge-portal/what-is-correlation/correlation-coefficient.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1884725977101500552
participantId -
raterParticipantId - 794A92B2BAE2D10119780BE18F00A292266679BC7412C4665EA6B5E4EB1AE7F5
createdAtMillis - 1739370079626
version - 2
agree - 0
disagree - 0
helpful - 0
notHelpful - 0
helpfulnessLevel - NOT_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 - 1
ratingsId - 1884725977101500552794A92B2BAE2D10119780BE18F00A292266679BC7412C4665EA6B5E4EB1AE7F5