kingston: have bad rep for ssds

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents place
Weight: 0.59
, city
Weight: 0.58
, community
Weight: 0.56
, boy
Weight: 0.55
, town
Weight: 0.54
Siblings venice
Weight: 0.35
, montreal
Weight: 0.34
, springfield
Weight: 0.34
, brooklyn
Weight: 0.34
, lancaster
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad rep for ssds 1.00
have rep for ssds 0.98
have bad rep 0.91
have rep 0.88

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: 0.93
Plausible(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(kingston, have bad rep for ssds)

Similarity expansion

0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(kingston, have rep for ssds)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(kingston, have bad rep)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(kingston, have rep)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(kingston, have rep for ssds)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(kingston, have bad rep)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(kingston, have bad rep)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Salient(kingston, have bad rep)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(kingston, have rep)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(kingston, have rep for ssds)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(kingston, have rep)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(kingston, have rep)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(kingston, have rep for ssds)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(kingston, have bad rep for ssds)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(kingston, have bad rep for ssds) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(kingston, have bad rep for ssds)