mri: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.65
, modality
Weight: 0.60
, tool
Weight: 0.60
, brain
Weight: 0.59
, technology
Weight: 0.58
Siblings mri machine
Weight: 0.35
, ultrasound
Weight: 0.34
, cerebral palsy
Weight: 0.33
, gamma radiation
Weight: 0.33
, surgical procedure
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
has quality bad 0.90
offer greater safety than x 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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(mri, has quality better)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(mri, has quality better)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(mri, has quality better)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(mri, has quality better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(gamma radiation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(gamma radiation, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(mri, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(mri, has quality bad)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(mri, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(mri, offer greater safety than x)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(mri, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(mri, has quality bad)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(mri, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(mri, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(gamma radiation, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(mri, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)