cataract: has state problem

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents complication
Weight: 0.66
, surgical procedure
Weight: 0.66
, problem
Weight: 0.60
, condition
Weight: 0.60
, disease
Weight: 0.59
Siblings glaucoma
Weight: 0.36
, plastic surgery
Weight: 0.36
, liver cancer
Weight: 0.35
, hysterectomy
Weight: 0.35
, tonsillectomy
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state problem 1.00
has state concern 0.84
be different from problems 0.82
be research problem 0.82
were such problem during war 0.79
is issue 0.78
has state complex 0.75
has state condition 0.75

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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(problem, be research problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cataract, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(problem, be research problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(problem, be research problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, is issue)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(problem, be research problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(cataract, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(plastic surgery, is issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, is issue)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(cataract, has state problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cataract, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cataract, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(problem, be research problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, is issue)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cataract, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(problem, be research problem)