[WHITE-PAPER] Birdwatch paper and limited explanatory model

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

The issue names no repository files, tests, or entry points. Start by reviewing the Birdwatch paper Appendix, especially table 10 and RQ2, then establish whether a statistically rigorous reanalysis and revised paper are in scope; done requires an agreed analysis and documented update.