lecture: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents presentation
Weight: 0.69
, topic
Weight: 0.60
, discussion
Weight: 0.59
, event
Weight: 0.59
, subject
Weight: 0.58
Siblings seminar
Weight: 0.35
, recital
Weight: 0.34
, speaker
Weight: 0.34
, concert
Weight: 0.34
, forum
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality right 0.90
has quality worth 0.85
CAN good 0.81
has quality price 0.80
sound good 0.78
has quality definition 0.76
has quality questions 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

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(presentation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(lecture, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(discussion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(lecture, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(discussion, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(lecture, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(discussion, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(presentation, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(discussion, has quality questions)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(presentation, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(discussion, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(discussion, has quality questions)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(forum, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(forum, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(speaker, has quality right)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality definition)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality worth)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality questions)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(presentation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(lecture, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(discussion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(lecture, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(discussion, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(lecture, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(seminar, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(forum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(forum, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(forum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(forum, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(seminar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(seminar, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality worth)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(speaker, has quality right) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(speaker, has quality right)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(seminar, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality questions)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(seminar, has quality definition) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality definition)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(lecture, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality bad)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(lecture, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(lecture, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(lecture, has quality definition)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Typical(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(lecture, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality definition)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.59
Typical(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(lecture, has quality definition)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(lecture, has quality definition)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(lecture, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(discussion, has quality questions)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(discussion, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(presentation, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality worth)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality questions)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality definition)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(forum, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(forum, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(speaker, has quality right)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.59
Typical(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(discussion, has quality questions)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Typical(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(discussion, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Typical(lecture, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(presentation, has quality good)