nuclear power plant: pose threat to aquatic life

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents plant
Weight: 0.85
, power plant
Weight: 0.72
, facility
Weight: 0.71
, power
Weight: 0.71
, chemical
Weight: 0.68
Siblings chemical plant
Weight: 0.40
, nuclear reactor
Weight: 0.40
, water plant
Weight: 0.38
, hydro
Weight: 0.37
, nuclear fission
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
pose threat to aquatic life 1.00
pose threat to life 0.94
be considered threat to ecological security 0.83
be considered threat 0.82
threat to ecological security 0.82
be considered threat to security 0.79
threat to security 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.11
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.14
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to life)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, threat to ecological security)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to security)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, threat to security)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Salient(nuclear power plant, threat to ecological security)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(nuclear power plant, pose threat to life)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, threat to ecological security)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, threat to ecological security)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(nuclear power plant, threat to security)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to security)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to life)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to life)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to security)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, threat to security)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to security)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, threat to security)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)