taxonomy: be useful to industry

Related concepts

Parents	discipline Weight: 0.58 , field Weight: 0.56 , information Weight: 0.56 , topic Weight: 0.56 , structure Weight: 0.54
Siblings	recursion Weight: 0.32 , computer database Weight: 0.32 , ontology Weight: 0.32 , directory Weight: 0.31 , indexing Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property	Similarity
be useful to industry	1.00
be useful in industry	1.00
is useful	0.84
be important to business	0.78
be important in technology	0.78
be important in business	0.77
be important resource of company	0.77
be about relationships useful	0.75
is valuable	0.75

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.50

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.90

Plausible(structure, be important in technology) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.85

Plausible(discipline, be important in business) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Plausible(discipline, be important in business)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Plausible(structure, be important in technology)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.16

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Remarkable(structure, be important in technology)

0.15

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Remarkable(discipline, be important in business)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.03

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Remarkable(ontology, is useful)

0.03

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(recursion, is useful)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.90

Plausible(structure, be important in technology) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.85

Plausible(discipline, be important in business) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

Remarkable(recursion, is useful) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Plausible(recursion, is useful)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

Remarkable(ontology, is useful) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Plausible(ontology, is useful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Salient(taxonomy, be useful to industry)

Similarity expansion

0.76

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.88

Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful in industry)

0.71

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.38

Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.26

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be useful in industry)

0.70

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.74

Salient(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Salient(taxonomy, be useful in industry)

0.67

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, be useful in industry)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.88

Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, is useful)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.88

Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, is valuable)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.74

Salient(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Salient(taxonomy, is useful)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.74

Salient(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Salient(taxonomy, is valuable)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, is useful)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.38

Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Typical(taxonomy, is useful)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Plausible(taxonomy, is valuable)

0.26

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.38

Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.96

¬ Typical(taxonomy, is valuable)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.74

Salient(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.09

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Typical(discipline, be important in business)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.18
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

¬ Typical(structure, be important in technology)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Typical(recursion, is useful)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(ontology, is useful)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.17

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.38

Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Typical(discipline, be important in business)

0.16

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.38

Typical(taxonomy, be useful to industry) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

¬ Typical(structure, be important in technology)