operation: have managers

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
have managers 1.00
managers 0.99
have important managers 0.98
have perceived as communicators managers 0.86
have perceived as poor communicators managers 0.85

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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(facility, have perceived as communicators managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(operation, have managers)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(facility, have perceived as poor communicators managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(operation, have managers)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(facility, have perceived as communicators managers)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(facility, have perceived as poor communicators managers)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(facility, have perceived as poor communicators managers)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(facility, have perceived as communicators managers)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(facility, have perceived as communicators managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(operation, have managers)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(facility, have perceived as poor communicators managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(operation, have managers)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(operation, have managers)

Similarity expansion

0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(operation, managers)
0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(operation, have important managers)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(operation, managers)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(operation, managers)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(operation, have important managers)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(operation, have important managers)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(operation, managers)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(operation, have important managers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(operation, have managers)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(operation, have managers)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(facility, have perceived as communicators managers)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(facility, have perceived as poor communicators managers)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(facility, have perceived as communicators managers)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(operation, have managers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(facility, have perceived as poor communicators managers)