marketing: has physical part process

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents strategy
Weight: 0.65
, department
Weight: 0.63
, aspect
Weight: 0.61
, partner
Weight: 0.61
, business
Weight: 0.60
Siblings advertising agency
Weight: 0.66
, planning
Weight: 0.34
, manager
Weight: 0.33
, accounting firm
Weight: 0.33
, engineering
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has physical part process 1.00
is social process 0.84

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

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(engineering, has physical part process)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(planning, has physical part process)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(engineering, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(engineering, has physical part process)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(marketing, has physical part process)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(marketing, is social process)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(marketing, is social process)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(marketing, is social process)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(marketing, is social process)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(marketing, has physical part process)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(planning, has physical part process)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(engineering, has physical part process)