Triple
T22299591
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Calaveras Reservoir |
E551219
|
entity |
| Predicate | hasHazardConsideration |
P128851
|
FINISHED |
| Object | seismic safety |
—
|
LITERAL FINISHED |
How this triple was built (2 steps)
Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.
NER
Named-entity recognition
gpt-5-mini
Instruction
Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).
Input
Phrase: seismic safety | Statement: [Calaveras Reservoir, hasHazardConsideration, seismic safety]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: hasHazardConsideration Context triple: [Calaveras Reservoir, hasHazardConsideration, seismic safety]
-
A.
hasNotableHazard
Indicates that an entity is associated with a significant risk, danger, or harmful condition that is noteworthy or exceptional.
-
B.
hasHazardLevel
Indicates that an entity is associated with a specified degree or category of risk or danger.
-
C.
hasHazardManagement
chosen
Indicates that an entity has measures, systems, or responsibilities in place to control, mitigate, or respond to identified hazards.
-
D.
isHazardTo
Indicates that one entity poses a potential source of danger, harm, or risk to another entity.
-
E.
hasObjectiveHazards
Indicates that an entity is associated with concrete, externally verifiable dangers or risks.
- F. None of above.
Provenance (3 batches)
The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.
| Step | Stage | Batch ID | Status | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| creating | Elicitation | batch_69e11e46c0188190800181a4233f28fe |
completed | April 16, 2026, 5:37 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f15722c3348190b63eb49764ef132d |
completed | April 29, 2026, 12:56 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69e72ffa438481908f80879aef2a589b |
completed | April 21, 2026, 8:06 a.m. |
Created at: April 16, 2026, 8:41 p.m.