engineering: be used in neuroscience

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents college
Weight: 0.65
, department
Weight: 0.64
, industry
Weight: 0.63
, science
Weight: 0.63
, major
Weight: 0.62
Siblings computer science
Weight: 0.36
, design
Weight: 0.35
, biology
Weight: 0.35
, mathematics
Weight: 0.35
, physics
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
be used in neuroscience 1.00
relate to science 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(biology, relate to science)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(computer science, relate to science)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
Remarkable(computer science, relate to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(computer science, relate to science)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(biology, relate to science) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(biology, relate to science)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Salient(engineering, be used in neuroscience)

Similarity expansion

0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(engineering, relate to science)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(engineering, relate to science)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(engineering, relate to science)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(engineering, relate to science)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(engineering, be used in neuroscience)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(engineering, be used in neuroscience)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(computer science, relate to science)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(engineering, be used in neuroscience) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(biology, relate to science)