creditor: demand to be pay

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents other person
Weight: 0.57
, matter
Weight: 0.56
, person
Weight: 0.55
Siblings bank
Weight: 0.65
, employee
Weight: 0.64
, shareholder
Weight: 0.64
, client
Weight: 0.63

Related properties

Property Similarity
demand to be pay 1.00
demand payment in full 0.89

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(employee, demand to be pay)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.10
Plausible(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(employee, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(employee, demand to be pay)

Salient implies Plausible

0.07
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.10
Plausible(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(creditor, demand to be pay)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.10
Plausible(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(creditor, demand payment in full)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(creditor, demand payment in full)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(creditor, demand payment in full)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(creditor, demand payment in full)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(creditor, demand to be pay)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.10
Plausible(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(creditor, demand to be pay)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(creditor, demand to be pay) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(employee, demand to be pay)