repetition: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents element
Weight: 0.64
, thing
Weight: 0.62
, factor
Weight: 0.60
, parameter
Weight: 0.59
Siblings melody
Weight: 0.33
, randomness
Weight: 0.33
, cliche
Weight: 0.33
, rhythm
Weight: 0.33
, characteristic
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
improve performance 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(cliche, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(cliche, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(rhythm, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(characteristic, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(rhythm, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(cliche, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(cliche, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(characteristic, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(characteristic, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(rhythm, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(rhythm, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(cliche, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(cliche, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(rhythm, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(rhythm, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(repetition, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(repetition, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(repetition, improve performance)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(repetition, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(repetition, improve performance)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(repetition, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(repetition, improve performance)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(repetition, improve performance)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(repetition, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(cliche, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(characteristic, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(cliche, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(rhythm, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(repetition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(rhythm, has quality bad)