site: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents historical site
Weight: 0.82
, web site
Weight: 0.76
, portal
Weight: 0.66
, topic
Weight: 0.66
Siblings construction site
Weight: 0.83
, web page
Weight: 0.76
, yellowstone national park
Weight: 0.71
, ground zero
Weight: 0.70
, public library
Weight: 0.69

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
is quality 0.87
has quality shit 0.79

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: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(portal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(site, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(portal, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(site, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(site, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(portal, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(portal, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(web site, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(portal, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(portal, has quality better)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(web site, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(portal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(site, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(portal, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(site, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(site, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(site, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(site, is quality)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(site, is quality)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(site, is quality)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(site, is quality)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(site, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(site, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(portal, has quality better)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(portal, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(portal, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(portal, has quality better)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)