planning: be important in relations 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 relations process 1.00
be important in public relations process 0.97
is is process 0.79
is social process 0.78
has physical part process 0.76
be important in negotiation 0.76
is dynamic process 0.76
be important in implementation process 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

0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(preparation, be important in negotiation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(planning, be important in relations process)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(preparation, be important in negotiation)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(preparation, be important in negotiation)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(marketing, is social process)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, has physical part process)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(preparation, be important in negotiation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(planning, be important in relations process)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, has physical part process)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, is dynamic process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(marketing, is social process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(marketing, is social process)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(marketing, has physical part process)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(planning, be important in relations process)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in public relations process)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(planning, be important in public relations process)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(planning, is is process)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(planning, has physical part process)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(planning, is is process)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(planning, is is process)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(planning, has physical part process)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(planning, be important in public relations process)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(planning, has physical part process)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(planning, be important in public relations process)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(planning, be important in implementation process)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(planning, be important in implementation process)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(planning, is is process)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(planning, be important in relations process)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(preparation, be important in negotiation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, has physical part process)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, is dynamic process)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(marketing, is social process)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(marketing, has physical part process)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
Typical(planning, be important in relations process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(preparation, be important in negotiation)