restaurant: has waiter

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents grocery store
Weight: 0.68
, institution
Weight: 0.64
, accommodation
Weight: 0.64
, food store
Weight: 0.62
Siblings italian restaurant
Weight: 0.87
, seafood restaurant
Weight: 0.81
, steakhouse
Weight: 0.80
, fast food restaurant
Weight: 0.80
, chinese restaurant
Weight: 0.77

Related properties

Property Similarity
has waiter 1.00
be at restaurant 0.78
be used to cashier to work at 0.78

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

0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(grocery store, be used to cashier to work at) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(restaurant, has waiter)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(grocery store, be used to cashier to work at)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(grocery store, be used to cashier to work at)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(grocery store, be used to cashier to work at) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(restaurant, has waiter)

Salient implies Plausible

0.15
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(restaurant, has waiter)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(restaurant, be at restaurant)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(restaurant, be at restaurant)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, be at restaurant)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(restaurant, be at restaurant)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, has waiter)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(restaurant, has waiter)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(grocery store, be used to cashier to work at)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(restaurant, has waiter) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(grocery store, be used to cashier to work at)