traffic: be in boston

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents hazard
Weight: 0.63
, activity
Weight: 0.62
, signal
Weight: 0.61
, situation
Weight: 0.61
, stop
Weight: 0.60
Siblings traffic light
Weight: 0.83
, business activity
Weight: 0.34
, air pollution
Weight: 0.34
, motor vehicle
Weight: 0.32
, sexual activity
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in boston 1.00
be in boston bad 0.98
be bad in nyc 0.82
be in seattle 0.81
be in chicago 0.81
be bad in seattle 0.81
be in seattle bad 0.81
be in chicago bad 0.81
be in miami 0.80
be in austin 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

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Salient(traffic, be in boston)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(traffic, be bad in nyc)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.13
Salient(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Salient(traffic, be bad in nyc)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.18
Remarkable(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(traffic, be bad in nyc)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(traffic, be in austin)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(traffic, be bad in seattle)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.13
Salient(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(traffic, be bad in seattle)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.13
Salient(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(traffic, be in austin)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.18
Remarkable(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(traffic, be bad in seattle)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.18
Remarkable(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(traffic, be in austin)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
Typical(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(traffic, be in austin)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.31
Typical(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(traffic, be bad in nyc)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.31
Typical(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(traffic, be bad in seattle)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.13
Salient(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Remarkable(traffic, be in boston)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(traffic, be in boston) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(traffic, be in boston)