labelling: has quality worse

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents service
Weight: 0.50
, practice
Weight: 0.47
, item
Weight: 0.47
, information
Weight: 0.44
, matter
Weight: 0.44
Siblings service station
Weight: 0.28
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.28
, postal service
Weight: 0.28
, line item
Weight: 0.27

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality worse 1.00
has quality good 0.84

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

0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(labelling, has quality worse)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(practice, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(labelling, has quality worse)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(practice, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(practice, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(line item, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(labelling, has quality worse)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(practice, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(labelling, has quality worse)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(line item, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(line item, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(labelling, has quality worse)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(labelling, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(labelling, has quality good)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(labelling, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(labelling, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(labelling, has quality worse)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(practice, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(line item, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(practice, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(labelling, has quality worse)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)