band: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents project
Weight: 0.63
, ensemble
Weight: 0.62
, act
Weight: 0.61
, scene
Weight: 0.61
Siblings sonic youth
Weight: 0.73
, orchestra
Weight: 0.72
, rubber band
Weight: 0.70
, ozzy osbourne
Weight: 0.69
, jimi hendrix
Weight: 0.68

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality better 0.94
has quality right 0.90
is good live 0.80
has shape solid 0.79
has quality joke 0.79
lose quality over time 0.78
is best 0.76

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(act, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(act, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(act, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(project, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(act, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(act, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(project, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(act, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(act, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(act, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(act, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(rubber band, has shape solid)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(rubber band, has quality joke)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(orchestra, has quality right)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(band, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(act, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(band, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(act, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(band, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(act, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(band, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(band, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(orchestra, has quality right) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(orchestra, has quality right)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(rubber band, has shape solid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(rubber band, has shape solid)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(rubber band, has quality joke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(rubber band, has quality joke)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(band, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(band, has quality bad)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality bad)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(band, has quality bad)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(band, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(act, has quality better)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(rubber band, has shape solid)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(orchestra, has quality right)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(rubber band, has quality joke)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(act, has quality better)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(band, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality bad)