new hampshire: was found

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents new england
Weight: 0.75
, new york
Weight: 0.73
, massachusetts
Weight: 0.64
, maine
Weight: 0.56
Siblings alabama
Weight: 0.65
, manchester
Weight: 0.61
, mississippi
Weight: 0.57
, lake champlain
Weight: 0.56
, new york city
Weight: 0.40

Related properties

Property Similarity
was found 1.00
was estabilished 0.83
was named 0.75

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

0.64
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(massachusetts, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was found)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(new england, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was found)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(new york, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was found)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(maine, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was found)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(new york, was found)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(new england, was found)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(massachusetts, was found)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(maine, was named)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(maine, was named)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.17
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(massachusetts, was found)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(new england, was found)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.08
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(new york, was found)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(lake champlain, was named)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(massachusetts, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, was found)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(new england, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, was found)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(new york, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, was found)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(maine, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, was found)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(lake champlain, was named) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(lake champlain, was named)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(new hampshire, was found)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was estabilished)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was named)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was named)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(new hampshire, was estabilished)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, was estabilished)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(new hampshire, was named)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was estabilished)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(new hampshire, was named)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(new hampshire, was found)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(new york, was found)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(new england, was found)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(massachusetts, was found)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(maine, was named)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(lake champlain, was named)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(new york, was found)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(new england, was found)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(massachusetts, was found)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(new hampshire, was found) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(maine, was named)