bagging: has quality jokes

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.42
, customer
Weight: 0.37
, container
Weight: 0.36
, process
Weight: 0.35
, problem
Weight: 0.35
Siblings extraction
Weight: 0.28
, cutting
Weight: 0.28
, carving
Weight: 0.27
, capture
Weight: 0.27
, beating
Weight: 0.27

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality jokes 1.00
has quality bad 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(bagging, has quality jokes)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(container, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(bagging, has quality jokes)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(container, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(container, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(carving, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(cutting, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(container, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(carving, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(carving, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(cutting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(cutting, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(bagging, has quality jokes)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Salient(bagging, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(bagging, has quality bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(bagging, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(bagging, has quality jokes)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(container, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(carving, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(cutting, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(container, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(bagging, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)