power plant: be considered threat to ecological security

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents nuclear power plant
Weight: 0.77
, plant
Weight: 0.73
, utility
Weight: 0.68
Siblings natural gas
Weight: 0.70
, nuclear reactor
Weight: 0.69
, hydro
Weight: 0.68
, power
Weight: 0.67
, turbine
Weight: 0.60

Related properties

Property Similarity
be considered threat to ecological security 1.00
pose threat to aquatic life 0.83

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)

Similarity expansion

0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.36
Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.36
Typical(power plant, be considered threat to ecological security)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(nuclear power plant, pose threat to aquatic life)