canned goods: has quality worth

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents food
Weight: 0.70
, commodity
Weight: 0.69
, item
Weight: 0.64
, grocery
Weight: 0.63
Siblings canned food
Weight: 0.39
, pet food
Weight: 0.37
, fresh food
Weight: 0.37
, junk food
Weight: 0.36
, fast food
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality worth 1.00
has quality bad 0.82

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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(canned goods, has quality worth)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(food, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(junk food, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(canned goods, has quality worth)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(fast food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(junk food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(junk food, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(canned goods, has quality worth)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Salient(canned goods, has quality bad)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(canned goods, has quality bad)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(canned goods, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(canned goods, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(canned goods, has quality worth)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(canned goods, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)