Triple
T655510
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Briggs v. Elliott |
E11638
|
entity |
| Predicate | legalDoctrineInvolved |
P4756
|
FINISHED |
| Object | separate but equal |
—
|
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: separate but equal | Statement: [Briggs v. Elliott, legalDoctrineInvolved, separate but equal]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: legalDoctrineInvolved Context triple: [Briggs v. Elliott, legalDoctrineInvolved, separate but equal]
-
A.
legalDoctrine
chosen
Indicates that one legal principle, rule, or theory is being applied, referenced, or relied upon as an authoritative basis for interpreting or deciding a legal issue.
-
B.
legalDoctrineChallenged
Indicates that a particular legal doctrine is being disputed, questioned, or contested, typically through litigation or formal legal argument.
-
C.
legalCase
Indicates a relationship where a formal legal dispute or proceeding exists between parties, typically adjudicated by a court or similar authority.
-
D.
legalSystem
Indicates the formal framework of laws, rules, and institutions that governs how legal matters are defined, interpreted, and enforced within a society or jurisdiction.
-
E.
legalDoctrineInfluenced
Indicates that one legal doctrine has shaped, informed, or contributed to the development or interpretation of another legal doctrine.
- 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_69a4932862a0819098be659c814e4981 |
completed | March 1, 2026, 7:27 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69a49f4d57688190a9515ac494a97b22 |
completed | March 1, 2026, 8:19 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69a49d121cec81909986c91291bb4ca8 |
completed | March 1, 2026, 8:09 p.m. |
Created at: March 1, 2026, 7:36 p.m.