mobile phone: has quality use

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cell phone
Weight: 0.86
, telephone system
Weight: 0.74
, digital camera
Weight: 0.73
Siblings smartphone
Weight: 0.70
, android
Weight: 0.63
, headset
Weight: 0.58
, pda
Weight: 0.57

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality use 1.00
has quality good 0.88
has quality bad 0.86

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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(cell phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(cell phone, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(cell phone, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(android, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(headset, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(smartphone, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(cell phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(pda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(pda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(smartphone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(smartphone, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(headset, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(headset, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(android, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(android, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(mobile phone, has quality use)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(pda, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(android, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(headset, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(smartphone, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality good)