expansion: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents project
Weight: 0.69
, construction
Weight: 0.64
, factor
Weight: 0.59
, growth
Weight: 0.59
, issue
Weight: 0.58
Siblings construction site
Weight: 0.35
, construction worker
Weight: 0.34
, restoration
Weight: 0.33
, revision
Weight: 0.33
, consolidation
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
be good for business 0.80
is good job 0.77
is low bad 0.77
be considered good 0.77
be bad for environment 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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(construction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(growth, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(construction, is good job) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(construction, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(growth, is low bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(project, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(growth, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(project, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(construction, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(growth, is low bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(construction, be bad for environment)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(construction, is good job)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(growth, is low bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(construction, be bad for environment)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(construction, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(construction, is good job)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(growth, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(construction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(growth, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(construction, is good job) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(construction, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(growth, is low bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(consolidation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(expansion, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(expansion, has quality bad)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(expansion, be good for business)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(expansion, be good for business)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(expansion, be good for business)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(expansion, be good for business)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(growth, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(growth, is low bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(construction, be bad for environment)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(construction, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(construction, is good job)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(growth, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(construction, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(growth, is low bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(construction, be bad for environment)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(construction, is good job)