nut: be better than roasted

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents material
Weight: 0.59
, source
Weight: 0.58
, magazine
Weight: 0.58
, plant
Weight: 0.58
Siblings macadamia nut
Weight: 0.81
, acorn
Weight: 0.63
, hazelnut
Weight: 0.63
, pecan
Weight: 0.62
, almond
Weight: 0.60

Related properties

Property Similarity
be better than roasted 1.00
taste better roasted 0.95
is roasted 0.95

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

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(almond, is roasted)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(almond, is roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(almond, is roasted)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Salient(nut, be better than roasted)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(nut, taste better roasted)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(nut, taste better roasted)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.38
Salient(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(nut, taste better roasted)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(nut, is roasted)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(nut, taste better roasted)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.38
Salient(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(nut, is roasted)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(nut, is roasted)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(nut, is roasted)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
Salient(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(nut, be better than roasted)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(nut, be better than roasted)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(nut, be better than roasted) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(almond, is roasted)