method: is effective

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
is effective 1.00
is most effective 0.93
is efficient 0.80
is more efficient 0.79

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: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(extraction, is more efficient)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(extraction, is efficient)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(extraction, is efficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(extraction, is efficient)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(extraction, is more efficient) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(extraction, is more efficient)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(method, is effective)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(method, is most effective)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.63
Salient(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(method, is most effective)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(method, is most effective)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.14
Typical(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(method, is most effective)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Salient(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(method, is effective)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(method, is effective)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(extraction, is more efficient)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(method, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(extraction, is efficient)