wetland: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents ecosystem
Weight: 0.73
, habitat
Weight: 0.71
, land
Weight: 0.65
, activity
Weight: 0.54
, source
Weight: 0.54
Siblings marsh
Weight: 0.71
, estuary
Weight: 0.58
, grassland
Weight: 0.38
, freshwater
Weight: 0.36
, pond
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
improve water quality 0.83
be good for environment 0.80
has quality loss 0.77
affect water quality in area 0.76
important to health of overall environment 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: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(source, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wetland, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(source, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wetland, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(habitat, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wetland, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(habitat, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(source, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(source, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(source, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(habitat, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(source, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(pond, be good for environment)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(source, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(habitat, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(source, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(wetland, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(pond, be good for environment)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(pond, be good for environment)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(wetland, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(wetland, has quality bad)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(wetland, has quality bad)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(wetland, has quality bad)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality bad)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(wetland, improve water quality)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(wetland, improve water quality)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(wetland, be good for environment)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(wetland, improve water quality)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(wetland, has quality loss)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(wetland, be good for environment)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(wetland, be good for environment)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(wetland, important to health of overall environment)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(wetland, affect water quality in area)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(wetland, important to health of overall environment)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(wetland, has quality loss)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(wetland, affect water quality in area)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(wetland, has quality loss)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(wetland, important to health of overall environment)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(wetland, affect water quality in area)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(wetland, improve water quality)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality loss)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(wetland, be good for environment)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(wetland, affect water quality in area)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(wetland, important to health of overall environment)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wetland, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(habitat, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(source, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(source, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(pond, be good for environment)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(habitat, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(source, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wetland, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(source, has quality bad)