hunting: be to wildlife management

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents pursuit
Weight: 0.64
, sport
Weight: 0.61
, practice
Weight: 0.60
, activity
Weight: 0.60
, hobby
Weight: 0.57
Siblings archery
Weight: 0.36
, fishing
Weight: 0.34
, camping
Weight: 0.33
, business activity
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be to wildlife management 1.00
affect wildlife 0.92
preserve wildlife 0.89
be on wildlife refuges 0.87
is conservation 0.82

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

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(hunting, be to wildlife management)

Similarity expansion

0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(hunting, affect wildlife)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Salient(hunting, affect wildlife)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(hunting, affect wildlife)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(hunting, preserve wildlife)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(hunting, preserve wildlife)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(hunting, be on wildlife refuges)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(hunting, is conservation)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(hunting, preserve wildlife)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(hunting, be on wildlife refuges)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(hunting, be on wildlife refuges)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(hunting, is conservation)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(hunting, is conservation)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(hunting, preserve wildlife)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(hunting, be on wildlife refuges)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(hunting, affect wildlife)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(hunting, is conservation)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(hunting, be to wildlife management)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(hunting, be to wildlife management)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(hunting, be to wildlife management)