screening: has quality effect

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents intervention
Weight: 0.63
, testing
Weight: 0.59
, approach
Weight: 0.58
, application
Weight: 0.58
, operation
Weight: 0.58
Siblings vaccination
Weight: 0.32
, surgical procedure
Weight: 0.32
, stress test
Weight: 0.32
, check
Weight: 0.31
, surveillance
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality effect 1.00
has quality good 0.78
has quality bad 0.78
has quality significance 0.77
has quality better 0.77

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

0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(testing, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(screening, has quality effect)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(testing, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(screening, has quality effect)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(intervention, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(screening, has quality effect)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(approach, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(screening, has quality effect)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(approach, has quality better)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(intervention, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(testing, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(testing, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(testing, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(intervention, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(approach, has quality better)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(testing, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(check, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(vaccination, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(vaccination, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(stress test, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(testing, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(testing, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(intervention, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(approach, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(screening, has quality effect)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(stress test, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(stress test, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(vaccination, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(vaccination, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(vaccination, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(vaccination, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(check, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(check, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(screening, has quality effect)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(screening, has quality effect)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(approach, has quality better)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(intervention, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(testing, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(testing, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(stress test, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(vaccination, has quality bad)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(vaccination, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(check, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.56
Typical(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(approach, has quality better)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.56
Typical(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(intervention, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.56
Typical(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(testing, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.56
Typical(screening, has quality effect)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(testing, has quality bad)