staging: be in play

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents element
Weight: 0.58
, feature
Weight: 0.54
, topic
Weight: 0.54
, detail
Weight: 0.52
, application
Weight: 0.51
Siblings lighting
Weight: 0.31
, plot
Weight: 0.31
, scale
Weight: 0.31
, setting
Weight: 0.31
, drama
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in play 1.00
be in theatre 0.77

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

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(lighting, be in play)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(setting, be in play)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(lighting, be in theatre)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.32
Plausible(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(lighting, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(lighting, be in play)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.32
Plausible(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(setting, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(setting, be in play)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.32
Plausible(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(lighting, be in theatre) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(lighting, be in theatre)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.32
Plausible(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(staging, be in play)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(staging, be in theatre)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(staging, be in theatre)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.32
Plausible(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(staging, be in theatre)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.19
Typical(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(staging, be in theatre)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(staging, be in play)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.32
Plausible(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(staging, be in play)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(lighting, be in play)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(setting, be in play)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(staging, be in play) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(lighting, be in theatre)