method: have positive impact on individuals

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 positive impact on individuals 1.00
have positive impact on individuals with loss 0.96
have impact on individuals 0.95
have positive impact 0.94
have impact on individuals with loss 0.91
have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss 0.90
have impact 0.87
have impact on individuals with sensory loss 0.84
were helpful to people 0.76
was different from other people 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(tool, were helpful to people)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(tool, were helpful to people)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(tool, were helpful to people)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(tool, were helpful to people)
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(method, have impact)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(method, have impact)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(method, have impact)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with loss)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(method, was different from other people)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(method, was different from other people)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(method, was different from other people)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(method, have impact)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(method, was different from other people)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(tool, were helpful to people)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(tool, were helpful to people)