negligence: be determined under law in workplace

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents charge
Weight: 0.65
, tort
Weight: 0.63
, cause
Weight: 0.63
, failure
Weight: 0.61
Siblings manslaughter
Weight: 0.34
, child neglect
Weight: 0.34
, heart failure
Weight: 0.33
, ignorance
Weight: 0.33
, respiratory failure
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be determined under law in workplace 1.00
be determined under common law in workplace 0.97
be determined under law 0.92
be determined under common law 0.89
is law 0.81

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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(tort, is law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(tort, is law)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(tort, is law)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(tort, is law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under common law in workplace)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.21
Salient(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under common law in workplace)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under common law in workplace)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under common law in workplace)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under common law)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.21
Salient(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under common law)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under common law)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under common law)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.21
Salient(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under law)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under law)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Salient(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)

Typical implies Plausible

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(tort, is law)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(negligence, be determined under law in workplace) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(tort, is law)