software company: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents company
Weight: 0.87
, firm
Weight: 0.70
, vendor
Weight: 0.68
, technology
Weight: 0.68
, business
Weight: 0.67
Siblings oracle
Weight: 0.67
, macromedia
Weight: 0.64
, netscape
Weight: 0.62
, ibm
Weight: 0.62
, sap
Weight: 0.59

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96

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

0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(software company, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(vendor, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(software company, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(software company, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(vendor, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(vendor, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(oracle, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(software company, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(vendor, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(software company, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(software company, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(oracle, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(oracle, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(software company, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(software company, has quality bad)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(software company, has quality bad)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(software company, has quality bad)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(software company, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(vendor, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(oracle, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(software company, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(vendor, has quality bad)