bar: be at michigan

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents spot
Weight: 0.62
, candy bar
Weight: 0.62
, feature
Weight: 0.60
, location
Weight: 0.59
Siblings chocolate bar
Weight: 0.66
, japanese restaurant
Weight: 0.64
, bar stool
Weight: 0.63
, disco
Weight: 0.54
, handlebar
Weight: 0.42

Related properties

Property Similarity
be at michigan 1.00
be at california 0.80
be at tulsa 0.80
be at germany 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(disco, be at michigan)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(japanese restaurant, be at california)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(japanese restaurant, be at tulsa)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(disco, be at germany)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
Remarkable(disco, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(disco, be at michigan)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(japanese restaurant, be at tulsa) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(japanese restaurant, be at tulsa)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(japanese restaurant, be at california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(japanese restaurant, be at california)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(disco, be at germany) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(disco, be at germany)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Salient(bar, be at michigan)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.10
Salient(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan)

Typical implies Plausible

0.15
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(bar, be at michigan)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(disco, be at michigan)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(japanese restaurant, be at california)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(japanese restaurant, be at tulsa)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(bar, be at michigan) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(disco, be at germany)