wildfire: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents event
Weight: 0.62
, fire
Weight: 0.59
, crisis
Weight: 0.58
, situation
Weight: 0.55
, emergency
Weight: 0.55
Siblings fire extinguisher
Weight: 0.35
, fire department
Weight: 0.35
, fire alarm
Weight: 0.35
, fire hose
Weight: 0.34
, fire brigade
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be bad for environment 0.80
be bad year 0.79
has quality services 0.77
be good for 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

0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(fire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.29
Plausible(fire, be bad for environment)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(fire, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(fire, be bad for environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(fire, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(emergency, has quality services)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(fire, be bad for environment)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(fire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.29
Plausible(fire, be bad for environment)
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(emergency, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(wildfire, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(wildfire, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(wildfire, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(wildfire, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Salient(wildfire, be bad year)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Salient(wildfire, be bad for environment)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, be bad year)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(wildfire, be bad year)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(wildfire, be bad for environment)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(wildfire, be bad for environment)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(wildfire, be bad year)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(wildfire, be good for environment)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, be bad for environment)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(wildfire, be good for environment)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(wildfire, be good for environment)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, be good for environment)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(emergency, has quality services)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(fire, be bad for environment)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(fire, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(fire, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(fire, be bad for environment)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(wildfire, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(emergency, has quality services)