cctv: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents system
Weight: 0.63
, security system
Weight: 0.62
, television station
Weight: 0.56
, camera
Weight: 0.54
, technology
Weight: 0.54
Siblings digital camera
Weight: 0.34
, camera lens
Weight: 0.33
, security guard
Weight: 0.33
, computer hardware
Weight: 0.32
, radio station
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
is poor quality 0.88
is quality 0.87
have poor image quality 0.82
have image quality 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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(security system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(security system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(cctv, is quality)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality better)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(cctv, is quality)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(cctv, is quality)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(cctv, is poor quality)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cctv, is poor quality)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(cctv, have image quality)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(cctv, is poor quality)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(cctv, have image quality)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(cctv, is poor quality)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(cctv, have image quality)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(cctv, have poor image quality)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(cctv, is quality)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(cctv, have image quality)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(cctv, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)