i: be at chicago

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents -
Siblings -

Related properties

Property Similarity
be at chicago 1.00
be at colorado 0.80
be at washington 0.79
be at alaska 0.79
be at florida 0.78
be at tulsa 0.78
be at alabama 0.78
be at texas 0.77
be at nevada 0.76
be at arizona 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

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(i, be at chicago)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(i, be at colorado)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.07
Remarkable(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(i, be at washington)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(i, be at washington)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.07
Remarkable(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(i, be at tulsa)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(i, be at alaska)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(i, be at chicago)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(i, be at chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(i, be at chicago)