grinding: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.58
, operation
Weight: 0.58
, thing
Weight: 0.54
, activity
Weight: 0.51
, process
Weight: 0.50
Siblings rolling
Weight: 0.32
, groove
Weight: 0.32
, extraction
Weight: 0.32
, time machine
Weight: 0.32
, grinder
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality better 0.90
has quality change 0.86
feel good 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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(grinding, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(rolling, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(extraction, has quality better)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(grinding, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(rolling, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(rolling, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(extraction, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(extraction, has quality better)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(grinding, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality better)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(grinding, has quality change)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(grinding, has quality better)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality change)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Salient(grinding, feel good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(grinding, feel good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(grinding, feel good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(grinding, has quality change)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(grinding, has quality change)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(grinding, feel good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(grinding, has quality better)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(grinding, has quality better)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(grinding, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(rolling, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(extraction, has quality better)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(grinding, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)