architect: have under threat jobs

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents contractor
Weight: 0.71
, design
Weight: 0.71
, artist
Weight: 0.64
, plan
Weight: 0.63
, specialist
Weight: 0.62
Siblings engineer
Weight: 0.36
, builder
Weight: 0.35
, painter
Weight: 0.35
, carpenter
Weight: 0.34
, construction worker
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
have under threat jobs 1.00
be under threat 0.91
has state jobs 0.83
jobs 0.80
has state job 0.77

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(contractor, has state jobs)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(specialist, has state jobs)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(contractor, jobs)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(contractor, has state job)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(contractor, jobs)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(contractor, has state job)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(specialist, has state jobs)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(contractor, has state jobs)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(specialist, has state jobs)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(contractor, has state jobs)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(contractor, has state job)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(contractor, jobs)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(painter, has state jobs)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(builder, has state jobs)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(engineer, has state job)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(builder, have under threat jobs)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, has state job)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(builder, be under threat)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(contractor, has state jobs)
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(specialist, has state jobs)
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(contractor, jobs)
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(contractor, has state job)
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(builder, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(builder, have under threat jobs)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(builder, be under threat)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(builder, be under threat)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(construction worker, has state job)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(construction worker, has state job)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(painter, has state jobs)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(painter, has state jobs)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(engineer, has state job)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(engineer, has state job)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(builder, has state jobs)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(builder, has state jobs)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Salient(architect, have under threat jobs)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(architect, be under threat)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, be under threat)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(architect, jobs)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(architect, has state jobs)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(architect, be under threat)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(architect, be under threat)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(architect, jobs)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(architect, has state job)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(architect, jobs)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(architect, jobs)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Salient(architect, has state jobs)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(architect, has state job)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(architect, has state jobs)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(architect, has state job)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(architect, has state job)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(architect, has state jobs)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(contractor, jobs)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(contractor, has state job)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(contractor, has state jobs)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(specialist, has state jobs)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(builder, be under threat)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Typical(construction worker, has state job)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(builder, have under threat jobs)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(painter, has state jobs)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(engineer, has state job)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(builder, has state jobs)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(contractor, jobs)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(contractor, has state job)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(contractor, has state jobs)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(specialist, has state jobs)