compression: affect quality

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents variable
Weight: 0.66
, technology
Weight: 0.65
, parameter
Weight: 0.63
, feature
Weight: 0.63
, method
Weight: 0.63
Siblings jitter
Weight: 0.34
, acceleration
Weight: 0.34
, throughput
Weight: 0.34
, viscosity
Weight: 0.34
, amplitude
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
affect quality 1.00
affect way 0.83
has quality good 0.81
has quality bad 0.81
affect quality of file 0.79
affect pressure 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(variable, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(compression, affect quality)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(compression, affect quality)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(compression, affect quality)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(compression, affect quality)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(variable, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(variable, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(jitter, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(throughput, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.18
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(viscosity, affect pressure)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(variable, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(compression, affect quality)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(compression, affect quality)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(compression, affect quality)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(compression, affect quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(jitter, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(jitter, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(viscosity, affect pressure) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(viscosity, affect pressure)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(throughput, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(throughput, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(compression, affect quality)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(compression, affect pressure)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(compression, has quality bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(compression, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect way)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality of file)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(compression, affect way)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(compression, affect way)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(compression, affect way)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect pressure)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(compression, affect pressure)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(compression, affect pressure)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(compression, affect quality of file)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(compression, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(compression, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(compression, affect quality of file)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(compression, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(compression, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(compression, affect quality of file)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(compression, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(compression, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
Plausible(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(compression, affect quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(variable, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(viscosity, affect pressure)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(jitter, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(throughput, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(variable, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(compression, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)