standard: be bad after all

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents concept
Weight: 0.66
, parameter
Weight: 0.65
, factor
Weight: 0.64
, mechanism
Weight: 0.63
Siblings quality
Weight: 0.66
, format
Weight: 0.66
, guideline
Weight: 0.66
, method
Weight: 0.66
, definition
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
be bad after all 1.00
be bad on snapchat 0.89
be bad on instagram 0.89
was different from other people 0.80
has quality bad 0.80
was different from people 0.79
is terrible 0.78
be over phone terrible 0.77
is good thing 0.77
act bad 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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mechanism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(standard, be bad after all)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(mechanism, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(mechanism, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(quality, be bad on instagram)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(quality, be bad on snapchat)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(quality, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(method, was different from other people)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(method, act bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(method, was different from people)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mechanism, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(standard, be bad after all)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
Remarkable(quality, be bad on instagram) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(quality, be bad on instagram)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
Remarkable(quality, be bad on snapchat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(quality, be bad on snapchat)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(quality, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(quality, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(method, was different from people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(method, was different from people)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(method, was different from other people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(method, was different from other people)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
Remarkable(method, act bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(method, act bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Salient(standard, be bad after all)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.04
Salient(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(standard, be bad after all)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(mechanism, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(quality, be bad on instagram)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(quality, be bad on snapchat)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(method, was different from other people)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(quality, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(method, was different from people)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(method, act bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.16
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.25
Typical(standard, be bad after all) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(mechanism, has quality bad)