method: have impact on individuals with sensory loss

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 on individuals with sensory loss 1.00
have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss 0.98
have impact on individuals with loss 0.91
have positive impact on individuals with loss 0.89
have impact on individuals 0.86
have positive impact on individuals 0.84
have impact 0.78
have positive impact 0.76

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: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(method, have impact)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(method, have impact)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(method, have impact)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)