mining: be in antarctica

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents enterprise
Weight: 0.61
, sector
Weight: 0.61
, business activity
Weight: 0.60
, environment
Weight: 0.59
, occupation
Weight: 0.58
Siblings oil company
Weight: 0.34
, miner
Weight: 0.33
, automobile industry
Weight: 0.33
, banking industry
Weight: 0.32
, agriculture
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in antarctica 1.00
be interested in antarctica 0.80
be banned in antarctica 0.79
be managed in antarctica 0.77

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(oil company, be interested in antarctica)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(oil company, be interested in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(oil company, be interested in antarctica)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(mining, be in antarctica)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(mining, be banned in antarctica)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(mining, be managed in antarctica)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(mining, be banned in antarctica)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(mining, be managed in antarctica)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(mining, be banned in antarctica)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(mining, be managed in antarctica)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(mining, be managed in antarctica)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(mining, be banned in antarctica)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(mining, be in antarctica)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(mining, be in antarctica)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(mining, be in antarctica) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(oil company, be interested in antarctica)