operation: was rolling thunder

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
was rolling thunder 1.00
was rolling thunder called 0.99
was rolling thunder important 0.99
was rolling thunder launched 0.94

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

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(operation, was rolling thunder)

Similarity expansion

0.83
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(operation, was rolling thunder called)
0.83
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(operation, was rolling thunder important)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(operation, was rolling thunder launched)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(operation, was rolling thunder called)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(operation, was rolling thunder important)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(operation, was rolling thunder launched)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(operation, was rolling thunder called)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(operation, was rolling thunder launched)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(operation, was rolling thunder important)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(operation, was rolling thunder launched)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(operation, was rolling thunder called)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(operation, was rolling thunder important)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(operation, was rolling thunder)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(operation, was rolling thunder)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(operation, was rolling thunder)