beam: is quality

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents structure
Weight: 0.57
, material
Weight: 0.56
, element
Weight: 0.54
, construction
Weight: 0.54
, apparatus
Weight: 0.53
Siblings eiffel tower
Weight: 0.32
, helix
Weight: 0.32
, arch
Weight: 0.32
, titanium dioxide
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
is quality 1.00
be quality 0.99
has quality good 0.91
has quality bad 0.87

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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(structure, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(beam, is quality)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(construction, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(beam, is quality)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(construction, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(structure, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(construction, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(structure, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(titanium dioxide, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(arch, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(arch, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(structure, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(beam, is quality)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(construction, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(beam, is quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(arch, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(arch, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(arch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(arch, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(titanium dioxide, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(titanium dioxide, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(beam, is quality)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(beam, be quality)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(beam, has quality good)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(beam, be quality)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(beam, be quality)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(beam, has quality bad)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(beam, be quality)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(beam, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(beam, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(beam, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(beam, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(beam, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(beam, is quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(construction, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(structure, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(titanium dioxide, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(arch, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(arch, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(construction, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(beam, is quality)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(structure, has quality good)