cannibal: has quality use

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents danger
Weight: 0.52
, band
Weight: 0.51
, journal
Weight: 0.50
, creature
Weight: 0.43
, thing
Weight: 0.41
Siblings werewolf
Weight: 0.31
, lizard
Weight: 0.31
, crocodile
Weight: 0.31
, cockroach
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality use 1.00
is quality 0.90
has quality good 0.88
has quality bad 0.86

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

0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(journal, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(band, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality use)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(band, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(band, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(journal, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(journal, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cockroach, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(journal, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(band, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(band, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cockroach, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(cockroach, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(cannibal, has quality use)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(cannibal, is quality)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(cannibal, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(cannibal, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(cannibal, is quality)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(cannibal, is quality)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cannibal, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(cannibal, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality use)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(band, has quality bad)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(journal, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(cockroach, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(band, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(band, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(cannibal, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(journal, has quality good)