relation: be related to information technology

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents factor
Weight: 0.57
, account
Weight: 0.57
, condition
Weight: 0.55
, third party
Weight: 0.53
Siblings friendship
Weight: 0.61
, identity
Weight: 0.60
, servant
Weight: 0.59
, attribute
Weight: 0.57
, term
Weight: 0.56

Related properties

Property Similarity
be related to information technology 1.00
be such as information age 0.84
be related 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(factor, be related) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(relation, be related to information technology)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(factor, be related)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(factor, be related)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(identity, be related)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(term, be related)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(term, be such as information age)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(factor, be related) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(relation, be related to information technology)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(term, be such as information age) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(term, be such as information age)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(term, be related) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(term, be related)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(identity, be related) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(identity, be related)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(relation, be related to information technology)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(relation, be related to information technology)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(factor, be related)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(term, be such as information age)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(identity, be related)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(term, be related)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.50
Typical(relation, be related to information technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(factor, be related)