up: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents hit
Weight: 0.58
, direction
Weight: 0.58
, process
Weight: 0.56
, organization
Weight: 0.56
Siblings down
Weight: 0.35
, out
Weight: 0.33
, away
Weight: 0.32
, back
Weight: 0.32
, big bang
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
has quality change 0.86
is low quality 0.82
has quality systems 0.78
is terrible 0.77
be related to good 0.76
has quality definition 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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(process, is quality)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(up, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(hit, is low quality)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(up, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(hit, is quality)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(up, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(hit, is quality)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(process, is quality)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(hit, is low quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(hit, is quality)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(process, is quality)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hit, is low quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(process, is quality)
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(up, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(hit, is quality)
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(up, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(hit, is low quality)
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(up, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Salient(up, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(up, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(up, be related to good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(up, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(up, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(up, be related to good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(up, be related to good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(up, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(up, be related to good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(up, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(up, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(hit, is quality)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(process, is quality)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(hit, is low quality)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(hit, is quality)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(process, is quality)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(up, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(hit, is low quality)