restoration: fail

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents project
Weight: 0.69
, process
Weight: 0.60
, thing
Weight: 0.59
, building
Weight: 0.58
Siblings dentures
Weight: 0.51
, construction
Weight: 0.34
, rehabilitation
Weight: 0.34
, landscaping
Weight: 0.34
, construction site
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
fail 1.00

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

0.34
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(process, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(restoration, fail)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(restoration, fail)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(project, fail)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(process, fail)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.57
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(project, fail)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(process, fail)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(process, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(restoration, fail)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(project, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(restoration, fail)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Salient(restoration, fail)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Salient(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(restoration, fail)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(restoration, fail)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.50
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(project, fail)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(process, fail)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(project, fail)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(restoration, fail) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(process, fail)