planning: be for managers

Related concepts

Parents	strategy Weight: 0.69 , stage Weight: 0.64 , step Weight: 0.62 , preparation Weight: 0.62
Siblings	marketing Weight: 0.34 , plan Weight: 0.34 , social engineering Weight: 0.33 , development Weight: 0.32 , approach Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
be for managers	1.00
be important process for managers	0.92
be as function of managers	0.91
be as pervasive function of managers	0.81
is management	0.78
be important in management	0.78
be important for employees	0.76
was management change	0.75

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.51

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.65

Plausible(strategy, be important in management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Typical(planning, be for managers)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Plausible(strategy, be important in management)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.09

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Remarkable(strategy, be important in management)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.03

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Remarkable(development, be important for employees)

0.02

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Remarkable(marketing, was management change)

0.01

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.09
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(marketing, is management)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.65

Plausible(strategy, be important in management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.26

¬ Plausible(planning, be for managers)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(marketing, is management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Plausible(marketing, is management)

0.41

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

Remarkable(marketing, was management change) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Plausible(marketing, was management change)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

Remarkable(development, be important for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Plausible(development, be important for employees)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Salient(planning, be for managers)

Similarity expansion

0.75

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(planning, be important process for managers)

0.74

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, be as function of managers)

0.67

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Remarkable(planning, be as pervasive function of managers)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.06

Typical(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Typical(planning, be as function of managers)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management)

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.06

Typical(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Typical(planning, is management)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Plausible(planning, be as function of managers)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.23

¬ Plausible(planning, is management)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.51

Salient(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Salient(planning, be as function of managers)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.51

Salient(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Salient(planning, is management)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.51

Salient(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Salient(planning, be as pervasive function of managers)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.06

Typical(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Typical(planning, be as pervasive function of managers)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.51

Salient(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Salient(planning, be important process for managers)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Plausible(planning, be as pervasive function of managers)

0.45

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Plausible(planning, be important process for managers)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.06

Typical(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Typical(planning, be important process for managers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.51

Salient(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Typical(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.26

Plausible(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Typical(planning, be for managers)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.18

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Typical(strategy, be important in management)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.11

¬ Typical(marketing, is management)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Typical(marketing, was management change)

0.02

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Typical(development, be important for employees)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.18

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.06

Typical(planning, be for managers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Typical(strategy, be important in management)