webcam: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents device
Weight: 0.66
, video
Weight: 0.58
, digital camera
Weight: 0.57
, thing
Weight: 0.57
, application
Weight: 0.55
Siblings laptop computer
Weight: 0.37
, computer keyboard
Weight: 0.36
, projector
Weight: 0.36
, computer monitor
Weight: 0.36
, tablet computer
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96

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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(webcam, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(webcam, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(webcam, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(webcam, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(webcam, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(webcam, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(webcam, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(webcam, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(webcam, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(webcam, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(webcam, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)