supervisor: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents manager
Weight: 0.80
, person
Weight: 0.66
, administrator
Weight: 0.64
, position
Weight: 0.62
Siblings director
Weight: 0.69
, sergeant
Weight: 0.62
, worker
Weight: 0.60
, foreman
Weight: 0.58
, technician
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality questions 0.76

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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(administrator, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(supervisor, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(administrator, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(administrator, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(technician, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(sergeant, has quality questions)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(foreman, has quality questions)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(administrator, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(supervisor, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(technician, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(foreman, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(foreman, has quality questions)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(sergeant, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(sergeant, has quality questions)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(supervisor, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(supervisor, has quality questions)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(supervisor, has quality questions)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(supervisor, has quality questions)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality questions)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(supervisor, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(administrator, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(foreman, has quality questions)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(technician, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(sergeant, has quality questions)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(administrator, has quality good)