camp: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.66
, facility
Weight: 0.66
, trip
Weight: 0.60
, community
Weight: 0.59
, topic
Weight: 0.58
Siblings boot camp
Weight: 0.37
, clinic
Weight: 0.34
, center
Weight: 0.33
, campsite
Weight: 0.33
, concert hall
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
is quality 0.91
has quality worth 0.85
has quality service 0.81
wait music poor quality 0.79
has shape solid 0.79
is good show 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

0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(trip, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(camp, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(program, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(camp, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(camp, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(trip, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(program, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(program, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(program, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(trip, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(program, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(boot camp, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(center, wait music poor quality)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(center, has shape solid)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(campsite, has quality worth)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(trip, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(camp, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(program, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(camp, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(camp, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
Remarkable(boot camp, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(boot camp, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(campsite, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(campsite, has quality worth)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(center, has shape solid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(center, has shape solid)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(center, wait music poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(center, wait music poor quality)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(camp, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Salient(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(camp, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(trip, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(program, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(campsite, has quality worth)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(boot camp, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(center, wait music poor quality)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(center, has shape solid)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(trip, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(camp, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(program, has quality bad)