integration: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents feature
Weight: 0.63
, service
Weight: 0.63
, operation
Weight: 0.62
, function
Weight: 0.60
, problem
Weight: 0.60
Siblings internet service provider
Weight: 0.33
, security system
Weight: 0.33
, operating system
Weight: 0.33
, migration
Weight: 0.33
, separation
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
is good thing 0.78
has quality question 0.77
has quality definition 0.76
has quality questions 0.76
is best 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

0.59
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(integration, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(separation, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(separation, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(operating system, has quality questions)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(migration, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(operating system, is best)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(operating system, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(migration, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(operating system, has quality question)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(migration, is good thing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(integration, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
Remarkable(separation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(separation, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(migration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(migration, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(security system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(operating system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(operating system, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(migration, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(migration, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(separation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(separation, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(migration, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(migration, is good thing)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(operating system, has quality question) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(operating system, has quality question)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(operating system, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(operating system, has quality questions)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(operating system, is best) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(operating system, is best)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(integration, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality bad)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(integration, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(integration, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(integration, is good thing)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(integration, is good thing)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(integration, is good thing)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(integration, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(integration, is good thing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(integration, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(separation, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(migration, is good thing)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(separation, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(migration, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(operating system, has quality questions)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(operating system, has quality question)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(operating system, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(migration, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(operating system, is best)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)