method: have impact

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents approach
Weight: 0.72
, standard
Weight: 0.66
, option
Weight: 0.65
, tool
Weight: 0.61
Siblings algorithm
Weight: 0.69
, extraction
Weight: 0.67
, strategy
Weight: 0.67
, adhesive tape
Weight: 0.66
, spray
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
have impact 1.00
have positive impact 0.91
have impact on individuals 0.88
have positive impact on individuals 0.87
have positive impact on individuals with loss 0.85
have impact on individuals with loss 0.85
have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss 0.80
be connected effect 0.78
have impact on individuals with sensory loss 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

0.00
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.05
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(algorithm, be connected effect)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
Remarkable(algorithm, be connected effect) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(algorithm, be connected effect)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(method, have impact)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Salient(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(method, have impact)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(algorithm, be connected effect)