Triple
T1635047
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | PGP |
E35340
|
entity |
| Predicate | cryptographicModel |
P30780
|
FINISHED |
| Object | hybrid cryptosystem |
—
|
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: hybrid cryptosystem | Statement: [PGP, cryptographicModel, hybrid cryptosystem]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: cryptographicModel Context triple: [PGP, cryptographicModel, hybrid cryptosystem]
-
A.
hasCrypt
Indicates that one entity possesses, contains, or is associated with a crypt belonging to or located within it.
-
B.
usesEncryptionAlgorithm
Indicates that one entity applies or relies on a specific encryption algorithm to protect data or communications.
-
C.
consideredInsecureAtKeySize
Indicates that a cryptographic algorithm or mechanism is regarded as insecure when used with a specified key size.
-
D.
cryptanalysisStatus
Indicates the current state or outcome of efforts to analyze or break a cryptographic system or cipher.
-
E.
securityAlliance
Indicates a formal cooperative relationship in which entities agree to support and protect each other’s security interests, often including mutual defense or coordinated security measures.
- 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_69a886036bc081909ff5de16dbe5e8ea |
completed | March 4, 2026, 7:20 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69a96083e7308190abbf025fe8e43abb |
completed | March 5, 2026, 10:52 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69a907cac610819083cafd4396b6d66c |
completed | March 5, 2026, 4:34 a.m. |
| PDg | Predicate description generation | batch_69a9607716b4819092187f8c08daaf31 |
completed | March 5, 2026, 10:52 a.m. |
Created at: March 4, 2026, 7:28 p.m.