Triple
T25092491
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Earl of Oxford’s Case |
E628499
|
entity |
| Predicate | citedAsPrecedentFor |
P129583
|
FINISHED |
| Object | priority of equitable remedies over inconsistent common law rights |
—
|
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: priority of equitable remedies over inconsistent common law rights | Statement: [Earl of Oxford’s Case, citedAsPrecedentFor, priority of equitable remedies over inconsistent common law rights]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: citedAsPrecedentFor Context triple: [Earl of Oxford’s Case, citedAsPrecedentFor, priority of equitable remedies over inconsistent common law rights]
-
A.
legalPrecedentFrom
Indicates that a legal decision, ruling, or principle is derived from, based on, or justified by an earlier legal case or authority.
-
B.
precedentFor
Indicates that one situation, decision, or case serves as an authoritative example or basis for deciding or interpreting another.
-
C.
usesLegalPrecedentFrom
chosen
Indicates that one legal case, decision, or argument relies on, cites, or is based upon the legal precedent established by another.
-
D.
hasCourtPrecedence
Indicates that one court decision or ruling holds authoritative priority over another in legal reasoning or application.
-
E.
createdInstitutionalPrecedentFor
Indicates that one action, decision, or event established a formal example or standard that later guided or constrained institutional behavior, rules, or practices for another.
- 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_69e2ff2f58e881908340527bc5d34f07 |
completed | April 18, 2026, 3:49 a.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f464b4c9b0819085daa00c7c3b8b76 |
completed | May 1, 2026, 8:30 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69f442c861188190967655c6d8012380 |
completed | May 1, 2026, 6:06 a.m. |
Created at: April 18, 2026, 6:24 a.m.