inclusion: is human rights issue

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.58
, topic
Weight: 0.57
, feature
Weight: 0.56
, characteristic
Weight: 0.55
, principle
Weight: 0.55
Siblings introduction
Weight: 0.33
, fairness
Weight: 0.31
, integration
Weight: 0.31
, incorporation
Weight: 0.31
, switch
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
is human rights issue 1.00
is rights issue 0.95
is issue 0.83
is ethical issue 0.80
is human 0.79
is feminist issue 0.76

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(introduction, is feminist issue)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(introduction, is issue)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(introduction, is issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(introduction, is issue)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(introduction, is feminist issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(introduction, is feminist issue)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(inclusion, is human rights issue)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(inclusion, is rights issue)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(inclusion, is issue)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(inclusion, is rights issue)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(inclusion, is rights issue)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(inclusion, is issue)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(inclusion, is human)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is rights issue)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(inclusion, is human)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(inclusion, is issue)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(inclusion, is ethical issue)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(inclusion, is ethical issue)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(inclusion, is ethical issue)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is ethical issue)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(inclusion, is human)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is issue)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is human)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(inclusion, is human rights issue)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(introduction, is issue)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(inclusion, is human rights issue) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(introduction, is feminist issue)