competitiveness: has quality definition

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents factor
Weight: 0.64
, trait
Weight: 0.62
, issue
Weight: 0.59
, thing
Weight: 0.58
, theme
Weight: 0.50
Siblings consistency
Weight: 0.34
, creativity
Weight: 0.33
, integrity
Weight: 0.33
, mobility
Weight: 0.33
, friendliness
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality definition 1.00
has quality good 0.76
has quality bad 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(creativity, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(mobility, has quality good)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(consistency, has quality good)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(creativity, has quality good)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.06
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(integrity, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(integrity, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(integrity, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
Remarkable(creativity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(creativity, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(creativity, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(creativity, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(consistency, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(consistency, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(mobility, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(mobility, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(competitiveness, has quality definition)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(competitiveness, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(competitiveness, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(competitiveness, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality definition)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(integrity, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(creativity, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(creativity, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(consistency, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(mobility, has quality good)