planning: is management function

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
is management function	1.00
be as function of management	0.98
is primary management function	0.93
be as primary function of management	0.91
is management	0.88
be as function of managers	0.87
has quality function	0.87
be important in management	0.87
be as function	0.86
was management change	0.83

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.54

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.65

Plausible(strategy, be important in management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Typical(planning, is management function)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Plausible(strategy, be important in management)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.12

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Remarkable(strategy, be important in management)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.03

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function)

0.03

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Remarkable(marketing, was management change)

0.02

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.13
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(marketing, is management)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.65

Plausible(strategy, be important in management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Plausible(planning, is management function)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(marketing, is management) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Plausible(marketing, is management)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Plausible(marketing, has quality function)

0.45

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

Remarkable(marketing, was management change) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Plausible(marketing, was management change)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17

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

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Salient(planning, is management function)

Similarity expansion

0.77

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Remarkable(planning, be as function of management)

0.75

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.18

Typical(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.13

¬ Typical(planning, be as function of management)

0.73

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.93

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Remarkable(planning, is primary management function)

0.72

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.18

Typical(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.02

¬ Typical(planning, be as function)

0.72

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.18

Typical(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Typical(planning, is management)

0.72

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(planning, be as primary function of management)

0.68

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management)

0.68

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, be as function of managers)

0.67

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Remarkable(planning, be as function)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.35

¬ Plausible(planning, be as function of management)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.18

Typical(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Typical(planning, be as function of managers)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Plausible(planning, be as function)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.23

¬ Plausible(planning, is management)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.61

Salient(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Salient(planning, be as function of management)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.61

Salient(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Salient(planning, is management)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.61

Salient(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Salient(planning, be as function)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Plausible(planning, be as function of managers)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.61

Salient(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Salient(planning, be as function of managers)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.93

Evidence: 0.61

Salient(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Salient(planning, is primary management function)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.61

Salient(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Salient(planning, be as primary function of management)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.18

Typical(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Typical(planning, be as primary function of management)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Plausible(planning, be as primary function of management)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.93

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Plausible(planning, is primary management function)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.93

Evidence: 0.18

Typical(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Typical(planning, is primary management function)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.61

Salient(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Typical(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Typical(planning, is management function)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.22

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Typical(strategy, be important in management)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.11

¬ Typical(marketing, is management)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Typical(marketing, was management change)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(marketing, has quality function)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.23

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.18

Typical(planning, is management function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Typical(strategy, be important in management)