tool: be classified as technology

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 as technology 1.00
be classified 0.88
be considered technology 0.87
be classified on basis 0.78
be considered as resource 0.75

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

0.00
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.04
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Remarkable(calculator, be considered technology)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
Remarkable(calculator, be considered technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(calculator, be considered technology)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(tool, be classified as technology)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(tool, be classified)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(tool, be classified)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.05
Typical(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(tool, be classified)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(tool, be classified)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(tool, be classified as technology)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(tool, be classified as technology)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(tool, be classified as technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(calculator, be considered technology)