patent: has quality good

Related concepts

Parents	method Weight: 0.60 , development Weight: 0.59 , material Weight: 0.59 , device Weight: 0.58
Siblings	invention Weight: 0.33 , tablet computer Weight: 0.32 , application Weight: 0.32 , network device Weight: 0.32 , algorithm Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality good	1.00
has quality bad	0.96
be good bad	0.83
be improved by technology more durable than original	0.77

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.58

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(patent, has quality good)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.71

Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(patent, has quality good)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.90

Plausible(material, be improved by technology more durable than original) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(patent, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Plausible(material, be improved by technology more durable than original)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.34

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.50

¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)

0.28

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)

0.26

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Remarkable(material, be improved by technology more durable than original)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.02

¬ Remarkable(invention, has quality bad)

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Remarkable(algorithm, has quality bad)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(invention, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(patent, has quality good)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.71

Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(patent, has quality good)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.90

Plausible(material, be improved by technology more durable than original) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(patent, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(invention, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Plausible(invention, has quality good)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.02

Remarkable(invention, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.01

¬ Plausible(invention, has quality bad)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

Remarkable(network device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

Remarkable(algorithm, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Plausible(algorithm, has quality bad)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Salient(patent, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.78

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.86

Salient(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Salient(patent, has quality bad)

0.76

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality bad)

0.71

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Plausible(patent, has quality bad)

0.69

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.86

Salient(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.22

¬ Salient(patent, be good bad)

0.67

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.77

Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Remarkable(patent, be good bad)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.26

¬ Plausible(patent, be good bad)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Typical(patent, has quality bad)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Typical(patent, be good bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.86

Salient(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(patent, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.18

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

0.17

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Typical(material, be improved by technology more durable than original)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Typical(invention, has quality bad)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Typical(invention, has quality good)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Typical(algorithm, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.70

Typical(patent, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Typical(material, be improved by technology more durable than original)