hazard: be identified during mission planning

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents condition
Weight: 0.60
, safety
Weight: 0.59
, thing
Weight: 0.57
, topic
Weight: 0.57
Siblings air pollution
Weight: 0.71
, chemical
Weight: 0.66
, asbestos
Weight: 0.66
, smoke
Weight: 0.65
, fire
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
be identified during mission planning 1.00
be identified during tactical mission planning 0.93
be identified 0.78

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(asbestos, be identified)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(asbestos, be identified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(asbestos, be identified)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Salient(hazard, be identified during mission planning)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(hazard, be identified during tactical mission planning)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(hazard, be identified)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(hazard, be identified during tactical mission planning)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(hazard, be identified)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(hazard, be identified during tactical mission planning)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Salient(hazard, be identified)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(hazard, be identified during tactical mission planning)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(hazard, be identified)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Salient(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(hazard, be identified during mission planning)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(hazard, be identified during mission planning)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(hazard, be identified during mission planning) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(asbestos, be identified)