junk food: have low value

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents bad food
Weight: 0.81
, food
Weight: 0.74
, thing
Weight: 0.63
, stuff
Weight: 0.63
Siblings fast food
Weight: 0.83
, soda pop
Weight: 0.73
, fast food restaurant
Weight: 0.70
, chocolate bar
Weight: 0.68

Related properties

Property Similarity
have low value 1.00
have value 0.90
have low nutritional value 0.84
have nutritional value 0.76
has quality good 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(junk food, have low value)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(junk food, have low value)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(bad food, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(junk food, have low value)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(junk food, have low value)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(fast food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(junk food, have low value)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(junk food, have value)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(junk food, have value)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(junk food, have value)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(junk food, have nutritional value)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(junk food, have low nutritional value)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(junk food, have nutritional value)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low nutritional value)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(junk food, have low nutritional value)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(junk food, have low nutritional value)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have value)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(junk food, have nutritional value)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(junk food, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(junk food, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(junk food, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have nutritional value)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(junk food, have low value)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(bad food, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(bad food, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(junk food, have low value) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)