conservation: require active management

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
require active management 1.00
require management 0.91
be important in management 0.86
is required 0.77
be necessary for development 0.76
ensure effective pressure group 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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(strategy, be important in management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(conservation, require active management)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(issue, ensure effective pressure group) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(conservation, require active management)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(concept, is required) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(conservation, require active management)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(concept, is required)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(strategy, be important in management)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(issue, ensure effective pressure group)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(issue, ensure effective pressure group)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(strategy, be important in management)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(concept, is required)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(ecology, is required)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(strategy, be important in management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(conservation, require active management)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(issue, ensure effective pressure group) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(conservation, require active management)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(concept, is required) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(conservation, require active management)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(ecology, is required) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(ecology, is required)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Salient(conservation, require active management)

Similarity expansion

0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(conservation, is required)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(conservation, require management)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(conservation, require management)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.31
Salient(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(conservation, require management)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(conservation, is required)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require management)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.31
Salient(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(conservation, is required)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(conservation, is required)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Salient(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(conservation, require active management)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(concept, is required)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(strategy, be important in management)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(issue, ensure effective pressure group)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(ecology, is required)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(concept, is required)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(strategy, be important in management)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(conservation, require active management) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(issue, ensure effective pressure group)