infection: is serious threat

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents etiology
Weight: 0.65
, blood transfusion
Weight: 0.65
, disease
Weight: 0.65
, surgical procedure
Weight: 0.64
Siblings lyme disease
Weight: 0.81
, pelvic inflammatory disease
Weight: 0.77
, infective endocarditis
Weight: 0.77
, gastroenteritis
Weight: 0.76
, candidiasis
Weight: 0.76

Related properties

Property Similarity
is serious threat 1.00
be serious threat after burn 0.93
is threat 0.92
be serious threat after severe burn 0.92
is serious 0.88
were such threat in cities 0.80
pose threat patient experiences 0.80
is serious condition 0.80
is serious illness 0.79
were such threat during revolution 0.79

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

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(lyme disease, is serious illness)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(pelvic inflammatory disease, is serious condition)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(pelvic inflammatory disease, is serious condition)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(pelvic inflammatory disease, is serious condition)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(lyme disease, is serious illness)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(lyme disease, is serious illness)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(infection, is serious threat)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(infection, be serious threat after burn)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(infection, be serious threat after burn)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(infection, be serious threat after severe burn)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(infection, be serious threat after severe burn)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(infection, be serious threat after burn)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(infection, be serious threat after severe burn)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(infection, pose threat patient experiences)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(infection, pose threat patient experiences)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(infection, pose threat patient experiences)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(infection, be serious threat after burn)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(infection, be serious threat after severe burn)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(infection, pose threat patient experiences)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(infection, is serious threat)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(infection, is serious threat)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(pelvic inflammatory disease, is serious condition)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(infection, is serious threat)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(lyme disease, is serious illness)