operation: has state storm

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents facility
Weight: 0.62
, functional group
Weight: 0.61
, place
Weight: 0.60
, concept
Weight: 0.60
Siblings operating system
Weight: 0.73
, raid
Weight: 0.72
, extraction
Weight: 0.66
, distribution
Weight: 0.66
, business activity
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state storm 1.00
is southern storm 0.92
is storm failing 0.86
is southern storm failing 0.86
is flood 0.76
have weather 0.76
flood 0.75

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.13
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(place, flood) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(operation, has state storm)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(place, flood)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(place, flood)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.20
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(place, flood) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(operation, has state storm)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(operation, has state storm)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(operation, is southern storm)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(operation, is southern storm)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(operation, is southern storm)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(operation, is storm failing)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(operation, is storm failing)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(operation, is southern storm failing)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(operation, is southern storm failing)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(operation, is storm failing)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(operation, is southern storm failing)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(operation, is flood)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(operation, is flood)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(operation, is flood)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(operation, is storm failing)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(operation, is southern storm)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(operation, is southern storm failing)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(operation, is flood)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(operation, has state storm)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(operation, has state storm)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(place, flood)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(operation, has state storm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(place, flood)