contraction: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents factor
Weight: 0.58
, function
Weight: 0.55
, concept
Weight: 0.52
, sign
Weight: 0.52
Siblings peristalsis
Weight: 0.41
, decline
Weight: 0.34
, growth
Weight: 0.32
, drop
Weight: 0.32
, decrease
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality worse 0.84
has quality difference 0.80
is low bad 0.77
be considered good 0.77

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

0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(function, has quality difference) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(contraction, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(function, has quality difference)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(function, has quality difference)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(decline, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(growth, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(growth, is low bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(function, has quality difference) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(contraction, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(growth, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(growth, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
Remarkable(growth, is low bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(growth, is low bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(decline, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(decline, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Salient(contraction, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.40
Typical(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(contraction, has quality worse)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality worse)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(contraction, has quality worse)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(contraction, has quality worse)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
Plausible(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(contraction, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(function, has quality difference)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(growth, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(decline, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(growth, is low bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.40
Typical(contraction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(function, has quality difference)