chicago: was found

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents los angeles
Weight: 0.67
, atlanta
Weight: 0.67
, illinois
Weight: 0.63
, hot spot
Weight: 0.62
, detroit
Weight: 0.60
Siblings las vegas
Weight: 0.36
, seattle
Weight: 0.36
, ohio
Weight: 0.35
, miami
Weight: 0.35
, indiana
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
was found 1.00
was was named 0.80
be found in middle of plates 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

0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(hot spot, be found in middle of plates) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(chicago, was found)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(hot spot, be found in middle of plates)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(hot spot, be found in middle of plates)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(hot spot, be found in middle of plates) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(chicago, was found)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(chicago, was found)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(chicago, was was named)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(chicago, was was named)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(chicago, was was named)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(chicago, was was named)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(chicago, was found)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(chicago, was found)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(hot spot, be found in middle of plates)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(chicago, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(hot spot, be found in middle of plates)