radio: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents radio station
Weight: 0.72
, broadcast
Weight: 0.69
, television
Weight: 0.68
, show
Weight: 0.65
, network
Weight: 0.62
Siblings television station
Weight: 0.42
, television show
Weight: 0.36
, television series
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality news 0.80
is good now 0.79
is poor 0.78
get anyway good ratings 0.78
be terrible today 0.77
has quality influence 0.76
has quality effects 0.76
get good ratings 0.76
is good thing 0.75

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

0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(radio, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(network, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(radio, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(network, has quality effects) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(radio, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(television, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(network, has quality effects)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(network, is good thing)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.50
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(network, is good thing)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(network, has quality effects)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(radio, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(network, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(radio, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(network, has quality effects) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(radio, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(radio, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(radio, has quality news)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(radio, has quality news)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(radio, has quality news)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality news)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(radio, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(network, has quality effects)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(television, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(network, is good thing)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(television, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(network, has quality effects)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(radio, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(network, is good thing)