Triple
T22422302
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Franco-British union proposal of June 1940 |
E554277
|
entity |
| Predicate | legalFeature |
P148110
|
FINISHED |
| Object | would have created common war cabinet |
—
|
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: would have created common war cabinet | Statement: [Franco-British union proposal of June 1940, legalFeature, would have created common war cabinet]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: legalFeature Context triple: [Franco-British union proposal of June 1940, legalFeature, would have created common war cabinet]
-
A.
legalSystemFeature
Indicates a characteristic, rule, or structural element that forms part of a particular legal system.
-
B.
featuresLaw
Indicates that something includes, presents, or is characterized by a particular law or legal provision.
-
C.
legalConcept
Indicates a relationship where something is classified or treated as a concept defined and governed by law or legal theory.
-
D.
legalMatters
Indicates that one entity is involved with, concerned about, or responsible for legal issues, processes, or obligations related to another entity or context.
-
E.
legalDoctrine
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.
- 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_69e11e4f2d0c819091aa3558ea2ee630 |
completed | April 16, 2026, 5:37 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f15a2a1a3c8190a649ee4df2429e69 |
completed | April 29, 2026, 1:08 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69e8989495bc81909d2699fce5992e28 |
completed | April 22, 2026, 9:44 a.m. |
| PDg | Predicate description generation | batch_69e8aa39e3388190b659d59948ebf3e6 |
completed | April 22, 2026, 11 a.m. |
Created at: April 16, 2026, 8:47 p.m.