Short answer
Not in archived exports. There the score is best read as raw interactions rescaled by a page and post type constant set around the time of export, so researchers should work with raw interaction counts, compared within page and period, or with baselines they build and report themselves.
What the evidence shows
- The study examines 856,699 posts from 186 party and leader pages in 20 European countries, 2010 to 2020, exported from CrowdTangle in October 2020.
- Inverting the documented formula, 95% of posts have an implied benchmark within 2% of a single value for their page and post type.
- Within each page and type, the score ranks posts almost exactly as raw interactions do (median rank correlation above 0.999).
- A constant built from each page's last 100 posts before the export fits the score closely (correlation 0.97 on the log scale), whereas benchmarks built from the posts before each post do not (0.52 to 0.56).
- As a result, older posts look like heavy underperformers: the median score is −25 for 2010 and −1.1 for 2020.
Caveats
The score removes differences between pages, so populist and leader advantages in raw interactions disappear. The study covers one set of party and leader pages exported in October 2020.