wad: has quality worth

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents file
Weight: 0.38
, site
Weight: 0.34
, problem
Weight: 0.33
, term
Weight: 0.32
Siblings computer file
Weight: 0.26
, bad breath
Weight: 0.26
, cough
Weight: 0.26
, launch pad
Weight: 0.26
, blob
Weight: 0.26

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality worth 1.00
has quality good 0.85
is net worth 0.81

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(cough, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(cough, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(cough, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(wad, has quality worth)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(wad, is net worth)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(wad, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(wad, is net worth)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(wad, is net worth)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(wad, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(wad, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(wad, is net worth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality worth)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(wad, has quality worth)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cough, has quality good)