fast food: has low calorific value

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents fast food restaurant
Weight: 0.85
, junk food
Weight: 0.83
, commodity
Weight: 0.68
, food
Weight: 0.66
, industry
Weight: 0.65
Siblings chinese food
Weight: 0.75
, hot dog
Weight: 0.70
, pizza
Weight: 0.68
, meat
Weight: 0.63
, taco
Weight: 0.57

Related properties

Property Similarity
has low calorific value 1.00
be high in calorie 0.80
be high in fat 0.77
has many calorie but few vitamin 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(pizza, be high in calorie)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, be high in fat)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(pizza, be high in calorie) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(pizza, be high in calorie)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(hot dog, be high in fat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(hot dog, be high in fat)

Salient implies Plausible

0.13
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(fast food, has low calorific value)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(fast food, has many calorie but few vitamin)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(fast food, has many calorie but few vitamin)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(fast food, has many calorie but few vitamin)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has many calorie but few vitamin)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has low calorific value)

Typical implies Plausible

0.12
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(fast food, has low calorific value)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(pizza, be high in calorie)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has low calorific value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(hot dog, be high in fat)