engineer: design

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents scientist
Weight: 0.70
, expert
Weight: 0.65
, contractor
Weight: 0.65
, construction worker
Weight: 0.65
, employee
Weight: 0.65
Siblings physicist
Weight: 0.57
, geologist
Weight: 0.37
, computer scientist
Weight: 0.37
, architect
Weight: 0.36
, biologist
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
design 1.00
design house 0.93
design car 0.91
picture structural design 0.84
design algorithm 0.81

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: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(architect, design house)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(architect, picture structural design)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(computer scientist, design algorithm)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(architect, design house) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(architect, design house)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(architect, picture structural design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(architect, picture structural design)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(computer scientist, design algorithm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(computer scientist, design algorithm)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(engineer, design)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(engineer, design car)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(engineer, design car)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(engineer, design car)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.17
Typical(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(engineer, design car)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(engineer, design)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(engineer, design)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(architect, design house)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(architect, picture structural design)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(engineer, design) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(computer scientist, design algorithm)