professional: need code

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents graduate student
Weight: 0.61
, customer
Weight: 0.58
, third party
Weight: 0.56
, expert
Weight: 0.55
Siblings staff
Weight: 0.67
, team
Weight: 0.65
, realtor
Weight: 0.64
, entrepreneur
Weight: 0.62
, counselor
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
need code 1.00
have code 0.97
need code of ethics 0.89
have code of ethics 0.86
be subject to codes 0.83
be subject to codes of conduct 0.81
be subject to strict codes 0.80
be subject to strict codes of conduct 0.80

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(counselor, have code)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(counselor, have code of ethics)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(counselor, have code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(counselor, have code)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(counselor, have code of ethics) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(counselor, have code of ethics)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(professional, need code)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(professional, have code)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(professional, need code of ethics)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(professional, need code of ethics)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(professional, have code)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(professional, have code of ethics)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(professional, be subject to codes)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(professional, be subject to strict codes)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(professional, be subject to strict codes of conduct)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(professional, be subject to codes of conduct)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(professional, have code of ethics)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(professional, have code)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Salient(professional, have code)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(professional, be subject to strict codes)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(professional, need code of ethics)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(professional, be subject to strict codes)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(professional, be subject to codes)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(professional, be subject to codes of conduct)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(professional, have code of ethics)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(professional, need code of ethics)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(professional, be subject to codes)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(professional, have code of ethics)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(professional, be subject to codes of conduct)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(professional, be subject to codes)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(professional, be subject to strict codes of conduct)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(professional, be subject to codes of conduct)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(professional, be subject to strict codes)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(professional, be subject to strict codes of conduct)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(professional, be subject to strict codes of conduct)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(professional, need code)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(professional, need code)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(counselor, have code)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(professional, need code) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(counselor, have code of ethics)