expansion: be problem in construction

Related concepts

Parents	project Weight: 0.69 , construction Weight: 0.64 , factor Weight: 0.59 , growth Weight: 0.59 , issue Weight: 0.58
Siblings	construction site Weight: 0.35 , construction worker Weight: 0.34 , restoration Weight: 0.33 , revision Weight: 0.33 , consolidation Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property	Similarity
be problem in construction	1.00
has state problem	0.82
cause problems for engineers	0.77
cause serious problems for engineers	0.76
cause problems	0.76
fail project management	0.75
plan important in project management	0.75

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.51

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.66

Plausible(issue, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Typical(expansion, be problem in construction)

0.46

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.64

Plausible(project, plan important in project management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Typical(expansion, be problem in construction)

0.41

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.10

Plausible(project, fail project management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Typical(expansion, be problem in construction)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Plausible(project, fail project management)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Plausible(issue, has state problem)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Plausible(project, plan important in project management)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.08

¬ Remarkable(project, fail project management)

0.16

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Remarkable(issue, has state problem)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Remarkable(project, plan important in project management)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.66

Plausible(issue, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.64

Plausible(project, plan important in project management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction)

0.30

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.10

Plausible(project, fail project management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Salient(expansion, be problem in construction)

Similarity expansion

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.89

Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.47

¬ Remarkable(expansion, cause problems for engineers)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.89

Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Remarkable(expansion, cause serious problems for engineers)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.89

Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Remarkable(expansion, cause problems)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.59

Salient(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Salient(expansion, cause problems)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.59

Salient(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Salient(expansion, cause problems for engineers)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.59

Salient(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Salient(expansion, cause serious problems for engineers)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Plausible(expansion, cause problems)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Plausible(expansion, cause problems for engineers)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Plausible(expansion, cause serious problems for engineers)

0.23

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.20

Typical(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(expansion, cause problems)

0.19

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.20

Typical(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Typical(expansion, cause serious problems for engineers)

0.18

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.20

Typical(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Typical(expansion, cause problems for engineers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.59

Salient(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Typical(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Typical(expansion, be problem in construction)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.26

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Typical(project, fail project management)

0.20

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(project, plan important in project management)

0.18

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Typical(issue, has state problem)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.26

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.20

Typical(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Typical(project, fail project management)

0.21

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.20

Typical(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(project, plan important in project management)

0.20

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.20

Typical(expansion, be problem in construction) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Typical(issue, has state problem)