[WHITE-PAPER] Birdwatch paper and limited explanatory model

[jakorostami]

Hi.

I just read the Birdwatch white-paper which Community Notes is based on. I realized that in the Appendix, specifically table 10 which relates to RQ2, the model for Tweet agreement on a 5-point scale has limited explanatory power. Modestly speaking.

Using an unweighted OLS with an adjusted R-squared of 0.03 but with statistically significant variables (few of them) and a statistically significant F-statistics just means the model is "better" than nothing. In the lens of statistics this model is useless for explainability or to use the estimated dependent variable 'Tweet agreement' in a bivariate association as erroneous.

The percentage of standard deviation explained is:
1 - sqrt(1 - r_squared)*100 = 2.02%

In summary, the model can explain about 4% in the variability of Tweet agreement and about 2% of the standard deviation of its errors.

Have you thought about redoing the analysis/paper with statistically rigorous methods?

Kindly

[jakorostami]

Bump

[jakorostami]

Bump.

It's been 1 year since I raised the issue with your Community Notes (former Birdwatch) model.

Anyone care to answer/comment? Perhaps you have changed the model for Community Notes?