repairman: attempt repair

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents person
Weight: 0.51
, worker
Weight: 0.47
, employee
Weight: 0.47
, specialist
Weight: 0.45
, visitor
Weight: 0.43
Siblings technician
Weight: 0.33
, salesman
Weight: 0.33
, mechanic
Weight: 0.32
, machinist
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
attempt repair 1.00
be at repair shop 0.82

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(mechanic, be at repair shop)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(mechanic, be at repair shop)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(technician, be at repair shop)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(technician, be at repair shop) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(technician, be at repair shop)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(mechanic, be at repair shop) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(mechanic, be at repair shop)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(mechanic, be at repair shop) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(mechanic, be at repair shop)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(repairman, attempt repair)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(repairman, be at repair shop)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(repairman, be at repair shop)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(repairman, be at repair shop)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(repairman, be at repair shop)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(repairman, attempt repair)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(repairman, attempt repair)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(mechanic, be at repair shop)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(mechanic, be at repair shop)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(repairman, attempt repair) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(technician, be at repair shop)