surveillance: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents practice
Weight: 0.60
, application
Weight: 0.60
, intrusion
Weight: 0.60
, mission
Weight: 0.59
, service
Weight: 0.58
Siblings reconnaissance
Weight: 0.33
, security system
Weight: 0.32
, escort service
Weight: 0.32
, observation
Weight: 0.32
, service station
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
is quality 0.91
has quality worth 0.85
be good for business 0.80
is good thing 0.78
be bad in bulgaria 0.77
improve performance 0.75
make perfect 0.75

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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(practice, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(practice, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(practice, make perfect) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(practice, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(practice, improve performance) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(practice, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(practice, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(service, is quality)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(practice, be good for business)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(practice, improve performance)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(practice, make perfect)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(practice, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(practice, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(service, is quality)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(practice, make perfect)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(practice, be good for business)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(practice, improve performance)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(observation, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(practice, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(practice, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(practice, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(practice, make perfect) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(practice, improve performance) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(security system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(observation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(observation, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(surveillance, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Salient(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Salient(surveillance, has quality bad)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality bad)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(surveillance, has quality bad)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(surveillance, is good thing)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Salient(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Salient(surveillance, is good thing)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(surveillance, is good thing)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, is good thing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Salient(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(surveillance, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(practice, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(practice, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(practice, improve performance)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(practice, be good for business)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(practice, make perfect)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(observation, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(practice, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(practice, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(practice, be good for business)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(practice, improve performance)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(surveillance, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(practice, make perfect)