management: has quality system

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents industry
Weight: 0.64
, solution
Weight: 0.62
, variable
Weight: 0.62
, business activity
Weight: 0.62
Siblings storage
Weight: 0.59
, neo
Weight: 0.38
, banking industry
Weight: 0.34
, operating system
Weight: 0.33
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality system 1.00
has quality standard 0.84
has quality better 0.84
has quality good 0.84
has quality cost 0.83
has quality bad 0.82
has quality full 0.80
be called systems 0.79
be needed in computer system 0.79
be necessary for computer system 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(variable, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(management, has quality system)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(management, has quality system)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(industry, has quality standard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(management, has quality system)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(variable, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(management, has quality system)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(variable, has quality cost)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(industry, has quality standard)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(variable, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(variable, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(variable, has quality cost)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(industry, has quality standard)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(storage, be needed in computer system)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(storage, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(storage, has quality full)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(storage, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(operating system, be needed in computer system)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(operating system, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(neo, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(neo, has quality better)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(operating system, be necessary for computer system)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.07
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(operating system, be called systems)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(industry, has quality standard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(management, has quality system)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(variable, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(management, has quality system)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(variable, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(management, has quality system)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(management, has quality system)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(neo, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(neo, has quality better)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(operating system, be called systems) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(operating system, be called systems)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(neo, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(neo, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(operating system, be necessary for computer system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(operating system, be necessary for computer system)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(operating system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(operating system, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(operating system, be needed in computer system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(operating system, be needed in computer system)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(storage, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(storage, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(storage, has quality full) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(storage, has quality full)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(storage, be needed in computer system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(storage, be needed in computer system)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(storage, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(storage, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.16
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(management, has quality system)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Salient(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(management, has quality system)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(variable, has quality cost)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(industry, has quality standard)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(variable, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(operating system, be called systems)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(operating system, be needed in computer system)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(operating system, be necessary for computer system)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(neo, has quality better)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(storage, be needed in computer system)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(neo, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(operating system, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(storage, has quality full)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(storage, has quality bad)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.14
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(storage, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.14
Typical(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(variable, has quality cost)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.14
Typical(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(industry, has quality standard)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.14
Typical(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.14
Typical(management, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(variable, has quality bad)