orientation: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.64
, activity
Weight: 0.64
, factor
Weight: 0.61
, variable
Weight: 0.61
, parameter
Weight: 0.60
Siblings socialization
Weight: 0.33
, business activity
Weight: 0.33
, alignment
Weight: 0.33
, sexual activity
Weight: 0.33
, camp
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
has quality cost 0.81
affect water quality 0.78

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

0.60
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(variable, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(program, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(variable, has quality cost)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(orientation, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(variable, has quality cost)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(program, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(program, is quality)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(variable, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(program, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(variable, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(program, is quality)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(variable, has quality cost)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(socialization, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(camp, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(socialization, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(variable, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(program, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality)
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(variable, has quality cost)
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(socialization, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(socialization, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(socialization, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(socialization, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(camp, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(camp, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(orientation, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Salient(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(orientation, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(program, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(variable, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(variable, has quality cost)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(socialization, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(socialization, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(camp, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(variable, has quality cost)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(program, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
Typical(orientation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(variable, has quality bad)