client: has risk for infection

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
has risk for infection 1.00
be susceptible to infection 0.89
be with dementia at risk 0.77
be with dementia at higher risk 0.77
be with dementia at higher risk for abuse 0.77
be with dementia at risk for abuse 0.77
have molluscum 0.76

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

0.20
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(partner, have molluscum) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(client, has risk for infection)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(partner, have molluscum)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(partner, have molluscum)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.23
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(partner, have molluscum) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(client, has risk for infection)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(client, has risk for infection)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(client, be susceptible to infection)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(client, be susceptible to infection)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(client, be susceptible to infection)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(client, be with dementia at higher risk)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(client, be with dementia at higher risk)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(client, be with dementia at risk)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(client, be with dementia at risk)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(client, be with dementia at higher risk for abuse)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(client, be with dementia at risk for abuse)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(client, be with dementia at higher risk for abuse)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(client, be with dementia at risk for abuse)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(client, be susceptible to infection)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(client, be with dementia at higher risk)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(client, be with dementia at risk)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(client, be with dementia at higher risk for abuse)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(client, be with dementia at risk for abuse)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(client, be with dementia at higher risk)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(client, be with dementia at risk)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(client, be with dementia at higher risk for abuse)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(client, be with dementia at risk for abuse)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(client, has risk for infection)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(client, has risk for infection)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(partner, have molluscum)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(client, has risk for infection) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(partner, have molluscum)