Triple
T13636805
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | K. Ramakrishnan |
E325868
|
entity |
| Predicate | hasPublicationType |
P80
|
FINISHED |
| Object | RFC |
E5627
|
NE 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: RFC | Statement: [K. Ramakrishnan, hasPublicationType, RFC]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: RFC Context triple: [K. Ramakrishnan, hasPublicationType, RFC]
-
A.
RFC
RFC is the commonly used abbreviation for Reading Football Club, a professional English football team based in Reading, Berkshire.
-
B.
RFC
RFC is the common abbreviation for the Richmond Football Club, a professional Australian rules football team based in Melbourne that competes in the Australian Football League (AFL).
-
C.
RFC
RFC is the common abbreviation for Rangers Football Club, a professional football team based in Glasgow, Scotland.
-
D.
RFCs
chosen
RFCs (Requests for Comments) are a series of technical and organizational documents that define and standardize protocols, procedures, and policies for the Internet and related networks.
-
E.
RFC 1
RFC 1 is the first Request for Comments document, published in 1969, which laid the groundwork for the development of the ARPANET and the modern Internet protocol standards process.
- F. None of above.
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
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_69d8076beddc8190a53156f5bea77f5e |
completed | April 9, 2026, 8:09 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69dbc5a616dc81908b8c1213e1d4beed |
completed | April 12, 2026, 4:17 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69f79d44e2148190a279aa6d103bf204 |
completed | May 3, 2026, 7:08 p.m. |
Created at: April 9, 2026, 9:51 p.m.