mandala: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents graphic
Weight: 0.39
, form
Weight: 0.37
, artwork
Weight: 0.37
, place
Weight: 0.24
Siblings sculpture
Weight: 0.29
, collage
Weight: 0.28
, tapestry
Weight: 0.28
, mosaic
Weight: 0.28
, calligraphy
Weight: 0.27

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
was good 0.81
has quality effect 0.78
has quality definition 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(collage, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(mosaic, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(sculpture, is quality)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(tapestry, has quality definition)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(mosaic, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(mosaic, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(collage, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(collage, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(sculpture, is quality)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(sculpture, is quality)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(tapestry, has quality definition)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(tapestry, has quality definition)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(mandala, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(mandala, has quality good)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(mandala, has quality good)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(mandala, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(mandala, was good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(mandala, has quality effect)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(mandala, was good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(mandala, has quality effect)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(mandala, was good)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(mandala, has quality effect)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(mandala, was good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality effect)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(mandala, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(mosaic, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(collage, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(tapestry, has quality definition)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mandala, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(sculpture, is quality)