cam: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mechanism
Weight: 0.60
, product
Weight: 0.57
, guy
Weight: 0.53
, application
Weight: 0.51
Siblings button
Weight: 0.32
, compact disc
Weight: 0.32
, immune system
Weight: 0.31
, piston
Weight: 0.31
, webcam
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
has quality good 0.94
has quality bad 0.90
have quality videos 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

0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 1.00
Plausible(guy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cam, has quality better)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mechanism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cam, has quality better)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(mechanism, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Plausible(guy, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(mechanism, has quality bad)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Remarkable(guy, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(button, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(piston, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(piston, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(piston, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(webcam, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(button, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 1.00
Plausible(guy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(cam, has quality better)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mechanism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(cam, has quality better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(piston, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(piston, has quality better)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(button, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(button, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(webcam, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(webcam, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(piston, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(piston, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(piston, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(piston, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(webcam, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(button, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(button, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(cam, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(cam, has quality good)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(cam, has quality bad)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(cam, has quality good)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(cam, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(cam, has quality bad)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(cam, has quality bad)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality bad)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(cam, have quality videos)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(cam, have quality videos)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(cam, have quality videos)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(cam, have quality videos)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cam, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(mechanism, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(guy, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(button, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(button, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(webcam, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(piston, has quality better)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(webcam, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(piston, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(piston, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(guy, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(cam, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(mechanism, has quality bad)