cross: is functional teams popular

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents object
Weight: 0.59
, game
Weight: 0.57
, pattern
Weight: 0.56
, device
Weight: 0.54
Siblings soccer ball
Weight: 0.32
, hockey game
Weight: 0.31
, curling
Weight: 0.31
, handball
Weight: 0.31
, football game
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
is functional teams popular 1.00
is functional teams important 0.97
is functional teams 0.97
be functional team work 0.90
be functional team work related 0.89
be functional team work related to interaction 0.84
be functional team work related to interaction among departments 0.84
is functional coordination necessary 0.81
is functional coordination 0.81
be team work related to interaction among departments 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

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(cross, is functional teams popular)

Similarity expansion

0.82
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(cross, is functional teams important)
0.82
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(cross, is functional teams important)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(cross, is functional teams important)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(cross, be functional team work)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(cross, be functional team work)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(cross, be functional team work related)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(cross, be functional team work related)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(cross, be functional team work related to interaction)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(cross, be functional team work)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(cross, be functional team work related to interaction among departments)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(cross, be functional team work related to interaction)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(cross, be functional team work related to interaction among departments)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(cross, be functional team work related)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(cross, is functional coordination necessary)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(cross, is functional coordination necessary)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(cross, is functional coordination necessary)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(cross, be functional team work related to interaction among departments)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(cross, be functional team work related to interaction)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(cross, be team work related to interaction among departments)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(cross, be team work related to interaction among departments)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(cross, is functional teams important)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(cross, be team work related to interaction among departments)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(cross, be functional team work)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(cross, be functional team work related)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(cross, be functional team work related to interaction)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(cross, be functional team work related to interaction among departments)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(cross, be team work related to interaction among departments)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(cross, is functional coordination necessary)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cross, is functional teams popular)

Typical implies Plausible

0.48
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(cross, is functional teams popular) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(cross, is functional teams popular)