research: be important to technological development

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents journal
Weight: 0.61
, concept
Weight: 0.59
, project
Weight: 0.58
, sector
Weight: 0.58
Siblings lineage
Weight: 0.45
, translocation
Weight: 0.45
, study
Weight: 0.35
, nanotechnology
Weight: 0.34
, analysis
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important to technological development 1.00
be important to development 0.86
be important in development 0.86
has state development 0.80
be related to technology 0.78
bring development 0.78
bring about development 0.77
is recent development 0.77
be fundamental to marketing concept 0.77
bring national development 0.77

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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(sector, is recent development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(research, be important to technological development)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(project, be important in development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(research, be important to technological development)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(sector, has state development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(research, be important to technological development)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(project, bring national development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(research, be important to technological development)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(project, bring about development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(research, be important to technological development)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(project, bring development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(research, be important to technological development)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(project, bring development)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(project, bring about development)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(project, be important in development)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(project, bring national development)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(sector, has state development)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(sector, is recent development)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(sector, has state development)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(sector, is recent development)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(project, bring national development)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(project, bring development)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(project, be important in development)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(project, bring about development)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(study, be related to technology)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(project, be important in development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(research, be important to technological development)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(sector, has state development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(research, be important to technological development)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(sector, is recent development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(research, be important to technological development)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(project, bring development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(research, be important to technological development)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(project, bring national development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(research, be important to technological development)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(project, bring about development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(research, be important to technological development)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(study, be related to technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(study, be related to technology)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(research, be important to technological development)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to development)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(research, be important to development)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(research, be fundamental to marketing concept)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(research, be fundamental to marketing concept)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(research, be important to development)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(research, be important to development)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(research, be fundamental to marketing concept)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(research, be fundamental to marketing concept)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(research, be important to technological development)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(project, bring development)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(project, bring about development)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(project, be important in development)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(project, bring national development)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(sector, has state development)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.17
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(sector, is recent development)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(study, be related to technology)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(project, bring development)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(project, bring about development)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(project, be important in development)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(project, bring national development)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(sector, has state development)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
Typical(research, be important to technological development) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(sector, is recent development)