hacker: target databases

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents criminal
Weight: 0.63
, outsider
Weight: 0.63
, person
Weight: 0.57
, third party
Weight: 0.57
, individual
Weight: 0.55
Siblings spammer
Weight: 0.33
, pickpocket
Weight: 0.32
, terrorist
Weight: 0.32
, thief
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
target databases 1.00
target healthcare 0.77
target hospitals 0.76
target big businesses 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

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(hacker, target databases)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(hacker, target hospitals)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(hacker, target big businesses)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(hacker, target healthcare)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(hacker, target healthcare)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(hacker, target hospitals)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(hacker, target healthcare)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(hacker, target healthcare)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(hacker, target big businesses)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(hacker, target hospitals)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(hacker, target hospitals)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(hacker, target big businesses)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(hacker, target big businesses)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(hacker, target databases)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(hacker, target databases) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(hacker, target databases)