emergency: has quality services

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents vehicle
Weight: 0.57
, instance
Weight: 0.57
, condition
Weight: 0.56
, issue
Weight: 0.55
, concern
Weight: 0.55
Siblings cardiac arrest
Weight: 0.68
, accident
Weight: 0.64
, panic
Weight: 0.59
, crisis
Weight: 0.58
, bomb
Weight: 0.58

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality services 1.00
was services 0.93
was services developed 0.87
was medical services 0.86
was medical services developed 0.84
has quality cost 0.80
has quality good 0.80
has quality function 0.78
has quality bad 0.77
has quality class 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

0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(instance, has quality function)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(emergency, has quality services)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(instance, has quality class)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(emergency, has quality services)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(instance, has quality function)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(instance, has quality class)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(instance, has quality function)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(instance, has quality class)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(cardiac arrest, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(instance, has quality function)
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(instance, has quality class)
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(emergency, has quality services)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(cardiac arrest, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cardiac arrest, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Salient(emergency, has quality services)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.28
Typical(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(emergency, was services)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(emergency, was services)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(emergency, was medical services developed)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.28
Typical(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(emergency, was services developed)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(emergency, was medical services)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(emergency, was services)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(emergency, was services developed)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.28
Typical(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(emergency, was medical services)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.28
Typical(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(emergency, was medical services developed)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(emergency, was services developed)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(emergency, was medical services)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(emergency, was medical services developed)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(emergency, was medical services developed)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(emergency, was services developed)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(emergency, was medical services)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(emergency, was services)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(emergency, has quality services)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(instance, has quality function)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(instance, has quality class)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(cardiac arrest, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.28
Typical(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(instance, has quality function)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.28
Typical(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(instance, has quality class)