chicago: was was named

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 was named 1.00
was found 0.80
was started 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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(detroit, was started)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(chicago, was was named)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(detroit, was started)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(detroit, was started)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(detroit, was started)
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(chicago, was was named)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(chicago, was was named)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(chicago, was found)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(chicago, was found)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(chicago, was found)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(chicago, was found)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(chicago, was was named)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(chicago, was was named)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(detroit, was started)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(chicago, was was named)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(detroit, was started)