conservation: be in nature work

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.62
, topic
Weight: 0.60
, strategy
Weight: 0.59
, concept
Weight: 0.59
, issue
Weight: 0.58
Siblings biodiversity
Weight: 0.34
, ecology
Weight: 0.34
, wildlife
Weight: 0.34
, recycling
Weight: 0.33
, animal husbandry
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in nature work 1.00
be related to balance of nature 0.85
minimise impact of human activities on environment 0.78
work 0.78
minimise impact of activities on environment 0.75

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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(strategy, work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(conservation, be in nature work)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(strategy, work)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.18
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(strategy, work)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.17
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(wildlife, be related to balance of nature)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(recycling, work)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(recycling, minimise impact of human activities on environment)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(strategy, work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(conservation, be in nature work)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(wildlife, be related to balance of nature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(wildlife, be related to balance of nature)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
Remarkable(recycling, minimise impact of human activities on environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(recycling, minimise impact of human activities on environment)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(recycling, work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(recycling, work)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(conservation, be in nature work)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(conservation, work)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(conservation, work)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(conservation, work)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Salient(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Salient(conservation, work)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Salient(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(conservation, be in nature work)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(strategy, work)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(wildlife, be related to balance of nature)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(recycling, minimise impact of human activities on environment)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(recycling, work)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(conservation, be in nature work) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(strategy, work)