client: be monitored for signs of abuse

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents creditor
Weight: 0.63
, family member
Weight: 0.62
, enterprise
Weight: 0.61
, partner
Weight: 0.61
Siblings real estate agent
Weight: 0.67
, owner
Weight: 0.63
, drug dealer
Weight: 0.63
, samsung
Weight: 0.62
, rolling stone
Weight: 0.61

Related properties

Property Similarity
be monitored for signs of abuse 1.00
be monitored for signs 0.94
is signs measured 0.84
is vital signs measured 0.82
is signs 0.81
is vital signs 0.79
be with dementia at risk for abuse 0.76
be with dementia at higher risk for abuse 0.76
abuse pets 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(owner, abuse pets)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(owner, abuse pets) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(owner, abuse pets)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse)

Similarity expansion

0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(client, be monitored for signs)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(client, be monitored for signs)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(client, be monitored for signs)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(client, is signs measured)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(client, is signs measured)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(client, is vital signs measured)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(client, is signs)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(client, is signs measured)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(client, is signs)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(client, is vital signs measured)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(client, is vital signs)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(client, is signs)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(client, is vital signs measured)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(client, is vital signs)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(client, be with dementia at risk for abuse)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(client, be with dementia at higher risk for abuse)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(client, is vital signs)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(client, be with dementia at risk for abuse)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(client, be with dementia at higher risk for abuse)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(client, be with dementia at risk for abuse)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(client, be with dementia at higher risk for abuse)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(client, be with dementia at risk for abuse)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(client, be with dementia at higher risk for abuse)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(client, is vital signs measured)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(client, is vital signs)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(client, is signs)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(client, is signs measured)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(client, be monitored for signs of abuse)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(client, be monitored for signs of abuse) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(owner, abuse pets)