Triple
T14872940
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Western Sahara (1975) |
E349794
|
entity |
| Predicate | hasDissentingOpinions |
P115951
|
FINISHED |
| Object | true |
—
|
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: true | Statement: [International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Western Sahara (1975), hasDissentingOpinions, true]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: hasDissentingOpinions Context triple: [International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Western Sahara (1975), hasDissentingOpinions, true]
-
A.
hasDissentingJustice
Indicates that within a judicial decision or ruling, there exists at least one justice who formally disagrees with the majority opinion.
-
B.
hasDissentType
Indicates that a particular dissent is classified as belonging to a specific type or category of dissent.
-
C.
hasDissentAuthor
Indicates that a decision, opinion, or ruling has an associated author who wrote a dissenting opinion.
-
D.
dissentingJusticesCount
Indicates the number of justices who formally disagreed with the majority opinion in a judicial decision.
-
E.
dissentingJustice
Indicates that a particular justice disagrees with the majority opinion or decision in a legal case.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (4 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_69d822ee4f408190b6ac3b2fa434f0df |
completed | April 9, 2026, 10:06 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69ded5e2c94c8190a16f05ea81701fc1 |
completed | April 15, 2026, 12:03 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69de8c1a2bcc81908f914e2e2ced65eb |
completed | April 14, 2026, 6:48 p.m. |
| PDg | Predicate description generation | batch_69de8f4b67cc8190b84b59fcec5cf579 |
completed | April 14, 2026, 7:02 p.m. |
Created at: April 10, 2026, 1:55 a.m.