overhead: be considered indirect cost

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cost
Weight: 0.64
, equipment
Weight: 0.62
, shot
Weight: 0.60
, operating expense
Weight: 0.59
Siblings ventilation system
Weight: 0.32
, computer hardware
Weight: 0.32
, power line
Weight: 0.32
, landing gear
Weight: 0.32
, utilization
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
be considered indirect cost 1.00
be considered cost 0.86
be direct 0.78
be estimated for individual jobs 0.77
be more relevant than fixed costs 0.76
differ from cost 0.76
be more relevant than costs 0.75
be more relevant than fixed costs in short-term decision making 0.75
be more relevant than fixed costs in decision making 0.75
differ from fixed cost 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

0.38
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cost, be estimated for individual jobs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(cost, be more relevant than fixed costs in short-term decision making) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(cost, be direct) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(cost, differ from fixed cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(cost, differ from fixed cost)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(cost, be direct)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(cost, be more relevant than fixed costs in short-term decision making)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(cost, be estimated for individual jobs)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(cost, be more relevant than fixed costs in short-term decision making)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(cost, be estimated for individual jobs)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(cost, be direct)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(cost, differ from fixed cost)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cost, be estimated for individual jobs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(cost, be more relevant than fixed costs in short-term decision making) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(cost, be direct) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(cost, differ from fixed cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(overhead, be considered indirect cost)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(overhead, be considered cost)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered cost)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(overhead, be considered cost)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Salient(overhead, be considered cost)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(cost, differ from fixed cost)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(cost, be direct)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cost, be estimated for individual jobs)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(cost, be more relevant than fixed costs in short-term decision making)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(cost, differ from fixed cost)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(cost, be direct)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cost, be estimated for individual jobs)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(overhead, be considered indirect cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(cost, be more relevant than fixed costs in short-term decision making)