intern: is unpaid

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents student
Weight: 0.69
, worker
Weight: 0.57
, training
Weight: 0.56
, person
Weight: 0.54
Siblings assistant
Weight: 0.36
, office worker
Weight: 0.34
, undergraduate
Weight: 0.33
, construction worker
Weight: 0.33
, apprentice
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
is unpaid 1.00
is paid 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

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, is paid)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(apprentice, is paid)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(apprentice, is paid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(apprentice, is paid)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(construction worker, is paid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(construction worker, is paid)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(intern, is unpaid)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(intern, is paid)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(intern, is paid)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(intern, is paid)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(intern, is paid)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(intern, is unpaid)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(intern, is unpaid)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(apprentice, is paid)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(intern, is unpaid) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(construction worker, is paid)