planning: be important in implementation process

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

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 important in implementation process 1.00
is is process 0.83
has physical part process 0.80
be important in project management 0.79
be integral part of process 0.79
is continuous process 0.79
was important to development 0.79
be integral part of designing process 0.79
is dynamic process 0.78
is social process 0.78

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(marketing, is social process)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(development, is continuous process)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, has physical part process)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, has physical part process)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, is dynamic process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(development, is continuous process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(development, is continuous process)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(marketing, has physical part process)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(marketing, is social process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(marketing, is social process)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(planning, be important in implementation process)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(planning, is is process)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(planning, has physical part process)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(planning, is is process)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(planning, is is process)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(planning, is is process)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(planning, has physical part process)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in project management)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(planning, has physical part process)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(planning, be important in project management)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(planning, be important in project management)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(planning, be important in project management)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(planning, be important in implementation process)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, has physical part process)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, is dynamic process)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(development, is continuous process)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(marketing, is social process)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(marketing, has physical part process)