unemployment: was high in cities of rome

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents income
Weight: 0.66
, indicator
Weight: 0.66
, spending
Weight: 0.64
, benefit
Weight: 0.63
, situation
Weight: 0.63
Siblings income tax
Weight: 0.35
, poverty
Weight: 0.34
, economy
Weight: 0.34
, unearned income
Weight: 0.33
, crisis
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
was high in cities of rome 1.00
be high in europe 0.79
be high in quebec 0.79
be high in italy 0.78
be in spain high 0.78
be high in spain 0.78
be in greece high 0.78
be high in france 0.77
be high in west virginia 0.77
be high in virginia 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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(income tax, be high in quebec)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(income tax, be high in quebec) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(income tax, be high in quebec)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Salient(unemployment, was high in cities of rome)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(unemployment, be high in spain)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(unemployment, be high in france)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Salient(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Salient(unemployment, be high in spain)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.03
Salient(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Salient(unemployment, be high in france)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(unemployment, be high in spain)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Salient(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(unemployment, was high in cities of rome)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(unemployment, was high in cities of rome)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(unemployment, was high in cities of rome) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(income tax, be high in quebec)