strategy: has physical part zone

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.67
, objective
Weight: 0.65
, plan
Weight: 0.65
, policy
Weight: 0.60
Siblings approach
Weight: 0.70
, planning
Weight: 0.69
, framework
Weight: 0.68
, marketing
Weight: 0.65
, consolidation
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
has physical part zone 1.00
zone 0.91
has physical part process 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(planning, has physical part process)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(planning, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(planning, has physical part process)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(marketing, has physical part process) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(marketing, has physical part process)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(strategy, has physical part zone)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(strategy, zone)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(strategy, zone)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Salient(strategy, zone)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(strategy, zone)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has physical part zone)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(strategy, has physical part zone)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(planning, has physical part process)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(marketing, has physical part process)