planning: has physical part 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
has physical part process 1.00
is is process 0.89
is social process 0.84
is dynamic process 0.83
be integral part of process 0.83
is continuous process 0.83
be important in implementation process 0.80
is is intellectual process 0.80
be integral part of designing process 0.79
is multidimensional 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: 0.28
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(marketing, is social process)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(development, is continuous process)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(development, is multidimensional process)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.04
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, has physical part process)
0.00
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.04
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(development, is dynamic process)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, has physical part process)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(marketing, has physical part process)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(development, is dynamic process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(development, is dynamic process)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(development, is continuous process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(development, is continuous process)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(marketing, is social process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(marketing, is social process)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(development, is multidimensional process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(development, is multidimensional process)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(planning, has physical part process)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(planning, is is process)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(planning, is is process)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(planning, is is process)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(planning, be important in implementation process)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(planning, is is intellectual process)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(planning, is is process)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(planning, is is intellectual process)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(planning, is is intellectual process)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(planning, is is intellectual process)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.02
Typical(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(planning, be important in implementation process)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(planning, be important in implementation process)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(planning, be important in implementation process)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(planning, has physical part process)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, has physical part process)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, is dynamic process)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(development, is continuous process)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(development, is multidimensional process)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(marketing, has physical part process)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(marketing, is social process)