gamma radiation: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents radiation
Weight: 0.77
, parameter
Weight: 0.65
, treatment
Weight: 0.59
, method
Weight: 0.58
, technology
Weight: 0.54
Siblings alpha radiation
Weight: 0.41
, gamma
Weight: 0.35
, beta radiation
Weight: 0.35
, beta particle
Weight: 0.34
, wavelength
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96

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: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(radiation, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.55
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(radiation, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(alpha radiation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(alpha radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(alpha radiation, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Salient(gamma radiation, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(gamma radiation, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.26
Salient(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(gamma radiation, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
Salient(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(radiation, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(alpha radiation, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(radiation, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)