casserole: was popular in 50s

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents dish
Weight: 0.58
, recipe
Weight: 0.58
, item
Weight: 0.58
, sauce
Weight: 0.55
, meal
Weight: 0.51
Siblings macaroni
Weight: 0.65
, spaghetti sauce
Weight: 0.37
, lasagna
Weight: 0.37
, ravioli
Weight: 0.36
, petri dish
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
was popular in 50s 1.00
is popular 0.94
was by water important 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(lasagna, is popular)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(macaroni, is popular)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(macaroni, is popular)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(macaroni, is popular)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(lasagna, is popular)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(lasagna, is popular)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(casserole, was popular in 50s)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(casserole, is popular)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(casserole, is popular)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.30
Remarkable(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(casserole, is popular)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(casserole, is popular)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(casserole, was popular in 50s)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(casserole, was popular in 50s)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(lasagna, is popular)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(casserole, was popular in 50s)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(macaroni, is popular)