project: need managed

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mission
Weight: 0.65
, upgrade
Weight: 0.64
, facility
Weight: 0.63
, web site
Weight: 0.61
Siblings restoration
Weight: 0.69
, expansion
Weight: 0.69
, construction site
Weight: 0.68
, landscaping
Weight: 0.68
, construction worker
Weight: 0.67

Related properties

Property Similarity
need managed 1.00
is managed 0.96
need have 0.76

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

0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(expansion, need have)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(expansion, need have) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(expansion, need have)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(project, need managed)

Similarity expansion

0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.08
Typical(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(project, is managed)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, is managed)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(project, is managed)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(project, is managed)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.08
Typical(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(project, need have)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(project, need have)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(project, need have)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need managed)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(project, need managed)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need managed) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(expansion, need have)