recycling: was called recycling

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.65
, service
Weight: 0.60
, thing
Weight: 0.60
, project
Weight: 0.60
Siblings landfill
Weight: 0.35
, trash
Weight: 0.34
, garbage
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
was called recycling 1.00
be example of open-loop recycling 0.93
be more difficult recycling 0.90
be than landfill 0.79
reduce need for landfill 0.78
produce waste 0.78
produce less waste 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

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(recycling, was called recycling)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be example of open-loop recycling)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be more difficult recycling)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(recycling, be example of open-loop recycling)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(recycling, be more difficult recycling)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(recycling, produce waste)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
Typical(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(recycling, produce waste)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(recycling, reduce need for landfill)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be than landfill)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(recycling, be example of open-loop recycling)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(recycling, produce less waste)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(recycling, produce waste)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(recycling, be more difficult recycling)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(recycling, be than landfill)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(recycling, produce waste)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(recycling, produce less waste)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(recycling, reduce need for landfill)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(recycling, be than landfill)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(recycling, reduce need for landfill)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(recycling, produce less waste)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.22
Typical(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(recycling, be than landfill)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.22
Typical(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(recycling, be example of open-loop recycling)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
Typical(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(recycling, reduce need for landfill)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.22
Typical(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(recycling, be more difficult recycling)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.22
Typical(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(recycling, produce less waste)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(recycling, was called recycling)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(recycling, was called recycling)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(recycling, was called recycling)