Similar Cases

Multi-factor similarity search using provision overlap, semantic similarity, and outcome alignment.

View Similarity Network
Select Source Case
Source Case: Criticism of Engineering in Products

Case Number: 67-10

Year: 1967

View Full Case

Found 10 Similar Cases

Ranked by weighted similarity score
Matching Methods:
Cosine Semantic embedding similarity Jaccard Set intersection / union Categorical Exact match scoring
47% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
49%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
56%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
55%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.4 I.6 +3

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

46% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
41%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
50%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
40%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
25%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 III.2 +1

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

44% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
51%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
52%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
36%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
67%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 I.4 II.1 +1

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

43% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
43%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
53%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
44%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
50%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 III.2 +1

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

43% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
55%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
51%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
40%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
43%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 III.2 +1

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Oscillation

42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
57%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
61%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
6%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.6

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Both Transfer

42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
40%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
53%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
23%
Outcome Match Categorical
100%
Subject Tags Jaccard
18%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 III.2

Outcome: Both Mixed

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
52%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
65%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
30%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
29%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1 III.2

Outcome: None vs Unethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Phase Lag

42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
64%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
73%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
18%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
20%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 II.1

Citations: 61-10

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Both Transfer

42% Similar
Similarity Components
Facts Similarity Cosine
56%
Discussion Similarity Cosine
68%
Provision Overlap Jaccard
20%
Outcome Match Categorical
50%
Subject Tags Jaccard
38%
Principle Tensions Jaccard
0%
What They Share

Provisions: I.1 III.2.b

Citations: 61-10

Outcome: None vs Ethical

Pattern: Transfer vs Stalemate

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue