vole: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents creature
Weight: 0.60
, rodent
Weight: 0.55
, prey
Weight: 0.55
, mammal
Weight: 0.54
, wildlife
Weight: 0.50
Siblings otter
Weight: 0.36
, squirrel
Weight: 0.35
, lizard
Weight: 0.35
, tree frog
Weight: 0.35
, beaver
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
be bad year 0.79

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(prey, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(vole, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(prey, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(prey, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(tree frog, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(prey, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(vole, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(tree frog, is quality)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(tree frog, is quality)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(vole, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(vole, has quality good)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(vole, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(vole, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Salient(vole, be bad year)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(vole, is quality)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(vole, is quality)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(vole, be bad year)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(vole, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(vole, is quality)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(vole, be bad year)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(vole, be bad year)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(vole, is quality)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(vole, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(prey, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(tree frog, is quality)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(vole, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(prey, has quality good)