camera: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents digital camera
Weight: 0.75
, electronic device
Weight: 0.68
, recorder
Weight: 0.64
, driver
Weight: 0.61
Siblings camera lens
Weight: 0.70
, human eye
Weight: 0.60
, underwater
Weight: 0.54
, cctv
Weight: 0.54
, flip
Weight: 0.54

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality better 0.94
is quality 0.91
is poor quality 0.87
is great 0.81
have poor image quality 0.80
do produce same image quality 0.78
affect product quality 0.77
do produce image quality 0.77

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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(recorder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(recorder, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(digital camera, do produce image quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.10
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(recorder, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(recorder, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce image quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce image quality)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(recorder, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(recorder, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(cctv, is poor quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cctv, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(recorder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(recorder, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(digital camera, do produce image quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(cctv, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(cctv, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(cctv, is quality)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(cctv, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(cctv, is poor quality)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(cctv, have poor image quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(cctv, have poor image quality)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(camera, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce image quality)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(recorder, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(recorder, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(cctv, is quality)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cctv, is poor quality)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(recorder, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(recorder, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce image quality)