sydney: be covered in smoke

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents australia
Weight: 0.63
, new zealand
Weight: 0.60
, city
Weight: 0.59
, town
Weight: 0.56
, place
Weight: 0.56
Siblings tasmania
Weight: 0.35
, western australia
Weight: 0.35
, perth
Weight: 0.35
, brisbane
Weight: 0.34
, usa
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
be covered in smoke 1.00
be called smoke 0.90
be called big smoke 0.88

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: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(perth, be covered in smoke)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(perth, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(perth, be covered in smoke)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(sydney, be covered in smoke)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(sydney, be called smoke)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(sydney, be called smoke)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(sydney, be called smoke)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(sydney, be called smoke)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(sydney, be called big smoke)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Salient(sydney, be called big smoke)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(sydney, be called big smoke)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(sydney, be called big smoke)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(sydney, be covered in smoke)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(sydney, be covered in smoke)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(sydney, be covered in smoke) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(perth, be covered in smoke)