kingston: have rep

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 rep 1.00
have bad rep 0.97
have rep for ssds 0.89
have bad rep for ssds 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: 0.94
Plausible(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(kingston, have rep)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(kingston, have bad rep)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(kingston, have bad rep)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Salient(kingston, have bad rep)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(kingston, have rep for ssds)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(kingston, have bad rep for ssds)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(kingston, have bad rep)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(kingston, have bad rep for ssds)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(kingston, have bad rep for ssds)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(kingston, have bad rep for ssds)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(kingston, have rep for ssds)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(kingston, have rep for ssds)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(kingston, have rep for ssds)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(kingston, have rep)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(kingston, have rep) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(kingston, have rep)