bristol: have bad reputation

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents port
Weight: 0.58
, town
Weight: 0.57
, place
Weight: 0.57
, city
Weight: 0.57
, area
Weight: 0.56
Siblings charleston
Weight: 0.34
, portsmouth
Weight: 0.33
, lancaster
Weight: 0.33
, birmingham
Weight: 0.33
, springfield
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad reputation 1.00
have reputation 0.97

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: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(birmingham, have bad reputation)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(birmingham, have reputation)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(birmingham, have reputation)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(birmingham, have reputation)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(birmingham, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(birmingham, have bad reputation)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(bristol, have bad reputation)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(bristol, have reputation)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(bristol, have reputation)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.21
Salient(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(bristol, have reputation)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.20
Remarkable(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(bristol, have reputation)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Salient(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(bristol, have bad reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(bristol, have bad reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(birmingham, have reputation)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(bristol, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(birmingham, have bad reputation)