tool: be classified

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.65
, gift
Weight: 0.62
, mechanism
Weight: 0.62
, resource
Weight: 0.61
Siblings metaphor
Weight: 0.71
, task force
Weight: 0.69
, spreadsheet
Weight: 0.69
, free software
Weight: 0.69
, calculator
Weight: 0.68

Related properties

Property Similarity
be classified 1.00
be classified as technology 0.88
be classified on basis 0.85
be classified on basis of ownership 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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(resource, be classified on basis of ownership) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(tool, be classified)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(resource, be classified on basis of ownership)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(resource, be classified on basis of ownership)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(resource, be classified on basis of ownership) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(tool, be classified)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(tool, be classified)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.34
Typical(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(tool, be classified as technology)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(tool, be classified as technology)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(tool, be classified as technology)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.58
Salient(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(tool, be classified as technology)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Salient(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(tool, be classified)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(tool, be classified)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(resource, be classified on basis of ownership)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.16
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.34
Typical(tool, be classified) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(resource, be classified on basis of ownership)