project: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mission
Weight: 0.65
, upgrade
Weight: 0.64
, facility
Weight: 0.63
, web site
Weight: 0.61
Siblings restoration
Weight: 0.69
, expansion
Weight: 0.69
, construction site
Weight: 0.68
, landscaping
Weight: 0.68
, construction worker
Weight: 0.67

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
has quality worth 0.82
be good for business 0.76
deal with bad weather 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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(web site, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(web site, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, deal with bad weather)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(expansion, be good for business)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(project, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(expansion, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(expansion, be good for business)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(construction worker, deal with bad weather) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(construction worker, deal with bad weather)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(project, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(project, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(project, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(construction worker, deal with bad weather)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(expansion, be good for business)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)