park: have considered positive influences on community health departments

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents location
Weight: 0.67
, playground
Weight: 0.67
, site
Weight: 0.66
, attraction
Weight: 0.66
, property
Weight: 0.63
Siblings central park
Weight: 0.89
, yellowstone national park
Weight: 0.80
, death valley
Weight: 0.68
, joshua tree
Weight: 0.67
, walt disney world
Weight: 0.63

Related properties

Property Similarity
have considered positive influences on community health departments 1.00
have considered departments 0.84
be important to community 0.81
be good for community 0.81
affect regions culture 0.78
help community 0.78
help communities 0.76
be divided in community state 0.76
be important to people of city 0.76
be important to people of new city 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.24
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(location, affect regions culture)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(location, affect regions culture)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(location, affect regions culture)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(central park, be important to people of new city)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(central park, be important to people of city)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(location, affect regions culture)
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(central park, be important to people of city)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(central park, be important to people of city)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(central park, be important to people of new city)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(central park, be important to people of new city)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(park, have considered departments)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(park, have considered departments)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(park, be important to community)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(park, have considered departments)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(park, be good for community)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(park, be important to community)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(park, be good for community)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(park, be important to community)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(park, be good for community)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(park, help communities)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(park, help communities)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(park, help communities)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, have considered departments)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(park, be good for community)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(park, be important to community)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(park, help communities)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(location, affect regions culture)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(central park, be important to people of city)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(central park, be important to people of new city)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(park, have considered positive influences on community health departments)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(location, affect regions culture)