agenda: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents topic
Weight: 0.68
, document
Weight: 0.64
, matter
Weight: 0.62
, issue
Weight: 0.59
Siblings discussion
Weight: 0.63
, forum
Weight: 0.34
, political ideology
Weight: 0.34
, meeting
Weight: 0.33
, manifesto
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
have bad reputation 0.81
has quality air 0.80
is uis bad 0.77
has quality questions 0.75
has quality definition 0.75

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(meeting, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(forum, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(meeting, have bad reputation)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(forum, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(discussion, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(meeting, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(forum, is uis bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(discussion, has quality questions)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(meeting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(meeting, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(discussion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(discussion, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(forum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(forum, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(meeting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(meeting, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(forum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(forum, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(discussion, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(discussion, has quality questions)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(meeting, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(meeting, have bad reputation)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(forum, is uis bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(forum, is uis bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(agenda, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(agenda, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(agenda, has quality definition)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(agenda, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(agenda, has quality definition)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(agenda, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(agenda, has quality definition)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality definition)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(agenda, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(meeting, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(meeting, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(discussion, has quality questions)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(discussion, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(forum, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(forum, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(meeting, have bad reputation)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(forum, is uis bad)