activity: be in organisations

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents business activity
Weight: 0.91
, property
Weight: 0.62
, third party
Weight: 0.59
, crime
Weight: 0.58
Siblings sexual activity
Weight: 0.80
, motor vehicle
Weight: 0.67
, spending
Weight: 0.66
, sexual intercourse
Weight: 0.66
, drug use
Weight: 0.66

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in organisations 1.00
be categorised 0.88
is were 0.78
be held transferred by will 0.76
is was 0.76
happen in certain areas 0.76

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: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(crime, happen in certain areas) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(activity, be in organisations)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(crime, be categorised) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(activity, be in organisations)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(crime, be categorised)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(crime, happen in certain areas)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(crime, be categorised)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(crime, happen in certain areas)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(drug use, is were)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(drug use, is was)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(crime, be categorised) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(activity, be in organisations)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(crime, happen in certain areas) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(activity, be in organisations)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(drug use, is were) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(drug use, is were)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(drug use, is was) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(drug use, is was)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(activity, be in organisations)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(activity, be in organisations)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(crime, be categorised)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(crime, happen in certain areas)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(drug use, is were)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(drug use, is was)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.41
Typical(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(crime, be categorised)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.41
Typical(activity, be in organisations) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(crime, happen in certain areas)