agenda: has quality good

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 good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality air 0.82
has shape solid 0.79
feel solid 0.77
have bad reputation 0.77
has quality definition 0.76
has quality questions 0.76
go from solid 0.76
be made better 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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(meeting, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(meeting, have bad reputation)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(forum, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(forum, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(discussion, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(meeting, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(meeting, be made better)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(discussion, has quality questions)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(meeting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(meeting, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(discussion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(discussion, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(forum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(forum, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(meeting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(meeting, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(forum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(forum, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(discussion, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(discussion, has quality questions)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(meeting, be made better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(meeting, be made better)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(meeting, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(meeting, have bad reputation)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(agenda, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(agenda, has quality bad)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality bad)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(agenda, has quality bad)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(agenda, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(agenda, has quality definition)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(agenda, has quality definition)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(agenda, has quality definition)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality definition)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(agenda, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(discussion, has quality questions)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(meeting, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(discussion, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(meeting, be made better)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(meeting, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(meeting, have bad reputation)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(forum, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(agenda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(forum, has quality bad)