Triple
T8423652
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Hippias Minor |
E198922
|
entity |
| Predicate | argumentativeMethod |
P58674
|
FINISHED |
| Object | elenchus |
—
|
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: elenchus | Statement: [Hippias Minor, argumentativeMethod, elenchus]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: argumentativeMethod Context triple: [Hippias Minor, argumentativeMethod, elenchus]
-
A.
arguesThat
Indicates that one entity presents reasons or justification in support of a specific claim, position, or proposition held about another entity or topic.
-
B.
philosophicalArgumentType
chosen
Indicates that one entity is classified as a specific type or category of philosophical argument in relation to another.
-
C.
defenseArgument
Indicates that an entity presents or supports a line of reasoning intended to defend or justify another entity, often in a legal or argumentative context.
-
D.
reargued
Indicates that an argument, case, or issue was presented and debated again, typically after having been argued previously.
-
E.
rearguedWith
Indicates that one party presented arguments again or renewed a previous debate or legal argument with another party.
- 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_69ca8312d63c8190bf133b676b44a385 |
completed | March 30, 2026, 2:05 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69cb859f787481908a11797a317c8849 |
completed | March 31, 2026, 8:28 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69cb70d70ea081909c3dc1bd2ec14f85 |
completed | March 31, 2026, 6:59 a.m. |
Created at: March 30, 2026, 6:06 p.m.