evaluation: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents consideration
Weight: 0.66
, activity
Weight: 0.61
, document
Weight: 0.61
, discipline
Weight: 0.58
, recommendation
Weight: 0.57
Siblings appraisal
Weight: 0.60
, observation
Weight: 0.33
, documentation
Weight: 0.32
, business activity
Weight: 0.32
, orientation
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
affect water quality 0.79
has quality question 0.77
has quality questions 0.76
improve performance 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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(discipline, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(discipline, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(recommendation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(discipline, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(recommendation, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(discipline, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(recommendation, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(discipline, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(discipline, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(observation, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(discipline, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(discipline, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(recommendation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(observation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(observation, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(evaluation, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality question)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality questions)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(evaluation, has quality question)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(evaluation, has quality questions)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality question)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(discipline, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(discipline, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(recommendation, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(observation, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(discipline, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(discipline, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(recommendation, has quality bad)