spam: have bad reputation

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents activity
Weight: 0.58
, issue
Weight: 0.57
, thing
Weight: 0.55
, risk
Weight: 0.55
, item
Weight: 0.54
Siblings junk mail
Weight: 0.33
, business activity
Weight: 0.33
, mail
Weight: 0.32
, trojan
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad reputation 1.00
have reputation 0.97
has quality bad 0.81

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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(risk, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(spam, have bad reputation)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(risk, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(risk, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(trojan, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(risk, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(spam, have bad reputation)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(trojan, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(trojan, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(spam, have bad reputation)

Similarity expansion

0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(spam, have reputation)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(spam, have reputation)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(spam, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(spam, have reputation)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(spam, have reputation)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(spam, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(spam, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(spam, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(spam, have bad reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(risk, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(trojan, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(spam, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(risk, has quality bad)