idaho: was named

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents state
Weight: 0.62
, place
Weight: 0.60
, school
Weight: 0.59
, town
Weight: 0.55
Siblings wyoming
Weight: 0.35
, tennessee
Weight: 0.35
, arkansas
Weight: 0.35
, missouri
Weight: 0.35
, oklahoma
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
was named 1.00
is named 0.97
was found 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(missouri, was named)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(missouri, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(missouri, was named)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(tennessee, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(tennessee, was named)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(idaho, was named)

Similarity expansion

0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.05
Typical(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(idaho, is named)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(idaho, is named)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(idaho, is named)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(idaho, is named)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(idaho, was found)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(idaho, was found)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.05
Typical(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(idaho, was found)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(idaho, was found)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(idaho, was named)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(idaho, was named)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(tennessee, was named)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(idaho, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(missouri, was named)