interface: affect quality

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents design
Weight: 0.60
, electronic device
Weight: 0.60
, network device
Weight: 0.59
, issue
Weight: 0.57
Siblings touchscreen
Weight: 0.67
, remote control
Weight: 0.66
, monitor
Weight: 0.59
, console
Weight: 0.56
, touchpad
Weight: 0.52

Related properties

Property Similarity
affect quality 1.00
affect sound quality 0.90
affect performance 0.83
affect sound 0.81
has quality good 0.81
has quality bad 0.81
has quality better 0.81
affect market 0.79
impact use 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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(network device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(design, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(issue, affect market) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(issue, impact use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(issue, impact use)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(issue, affect market)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(design, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(design, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(issue, affect market)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(issue, impact use)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(touchpad, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(console, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(monitor, has quality better)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(network device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(interface, affect quality)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(design, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(interface, affect quality)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(interface, affect quality)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(interface, affect quality)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(issue, affect market) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(interface, affect quality)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(issue, impact use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(interface, affect quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(monitor, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(monitor, has quality better)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(console, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(console, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(monitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(monitor, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(touchpad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(touchpad, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(interface, affect quality)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect sound quality)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(interface, affect sound quality)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(interface, affect sound)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect sound)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(interface, affect sound quality)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(interface, affect sound)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(interface, affect sound quality)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(interface, affect sound)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(interface, affect quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(issue, impact use)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(issue, affect market)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(design, has quality good)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(touchpad, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(console, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality better)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(monitor, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(issue, impact use)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(issue, affect market)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(design, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(interface, affect quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)