conference: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents forum
Weight: 0.69
, seminar
Weight: 0.64
, function
Weight: 0.62
, gathering
Weight: 0.61
Siblings national convention
Weight: 0.65
, summit
Weight: 0.61
, pass
Weight: 0.56
, acc
Weight: 0.56
, chi
Weight: 0.44

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
has quality wrong 0.87
has quality worth 0.82
was good 0.81
has quality difference 0.77
is uis bad 0.77
has quality questions 0.75
has quality definition 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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(forum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(forum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(seminar, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(seminar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(forum, is uis bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(gathering, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(gathering, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(function, has quality difference) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(seminar, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(seminar, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(seminar, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(gathering, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(gathering, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(forum, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(gathering, has quality wrong)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(forum, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality worth)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(gathering, has quality worth)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality questions)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(function, has quality difference)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality definition)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(forum, is uis bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(gathering, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(gathering, has quality wrong)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(forum, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(forum, is uis bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(forum, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(function, has quality difference)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(gathering, has quality worth)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality worth)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality definition)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality questions)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(chi, was good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(forum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(forum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(seminar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(seminar, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(gathering, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(forum, is uis bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(gathering, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(function, has quality difference) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(gathering, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(seminar, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(seminar, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(seminar, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(chi, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(chi, was good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(conference, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(conference, has quality better)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality better)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(conference, has quality better)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(conference, has quality definition)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(conference, has quality definition)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(conference, has quality definition)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality better)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality definition)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(conference, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality worth)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(gathering, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality questions)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(gathering, has quality worth)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(gathering, has quality wrong)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(forum, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality definition)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(forum, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(function, has quality difference)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(forum, is uis bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(chi, was good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(gathering, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(forum, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(forum, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(gathering, has quality wrong)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality worth)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(gathering, has quality worth)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality questions)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(function, has quality difference)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality definition)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(conference, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(forum, is uis bad)