development: was formed

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents concept
Weight: 0.63
, aspect
Weight: 0.60
, step
Weight: 0.60
, process
Weight: 0.60
Siblings acquisition
Weight: 0.69
, artificial intelligence
Weight: 0.64
, discovery
Weight: 0.62
, well
Weight: 0.60
, cell division
Weight: 0.60

Related properties

Property Similarity
was formed 1.00
is created 0.79
be created 0.78

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

0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.10
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(artificial intelligence, be created)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.09
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(artificial intelligence, is created)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(artificial intelligence, is created)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(artificial intelligence, is created)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(artificial intelligence, be created)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(artificial intelligence, be created)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Salient(development, was formed)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, was formed)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(development, was formed)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(artificial intelligence, is created)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, was formed)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(artificial intelligence, be created)