rear window: be considered masterpiece

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents window
Weight: 0.83
, vehicle
Weight: 0.64
, movie
Weight: 0.61
, film
Weight: 0.57
Siblings front door
Weight: 0.41
, window pane
Weight: 0.40
, windshield
Weight: 0.39
, door
Weight: 0.38
, wall
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
be considered masterpiece 1.00
is masterpiece 0.97

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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(rear window, be considered masterpiece)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(window, be considered masterpiece)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(window, be considered masterpiece)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(rear window, be considered masterpiece)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(rear window, be considered masterpiece)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(rear window, is masterpiece)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(rear window, is masterpiece)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(rear window, is masterpiece)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.60
Salient(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(rear window, is masterpiece)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Salient(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(rear window, be considered masterpiece)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(rear window, be considered masterpiece)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(window, be considered masterpiece)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(rear window, be considered masterpiece) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(window, be considered masterpiece)