Triple
T25620733
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Flag Protection Act of 1989 |
E642288
|
entity |
| Predicate | dateDeclaredUnconstitutional |
P14664
|
FINISHED |
| Object | 1990 |
—
|
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: 1990 | Statement: [Flag Protection Act of 1989, dateDeclaredUnconstitutional, 1990]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: dateDeclaredUnconstitutional Context triple: [Flag Protection Act of 1989, dateDeclaredUnconstitutional, 1990]
-
A.
yearDeclaredUnconstitutional
chosen
Indicates the specific year in which a law, policy, or legal provision was officially ruled unconstitutional.
-
B.
declaredUnconstitutionalInCase
Indicates that a law, policy, or action was ruled unconstitutional in a specific legal case.
-
C.
mayBeDeclaredUnconstitutionalBy
Indicates that one entity (typically a law, policy, or action) can be judged and formally ruled as unconstitutional by another entity (typically a court or constitutional authority).
-
D.
constitutionalChallenge
Indicates a legal action or argument asserting that a law, policy, or governmental act violates a constitution and should be reviewed or invalidated.
-
E.
unconstitutionalProvisionCharacterization
Indicates that a particular legal provision is characterized or identified as being unconstitutional.
- 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_69e77e7a96748190b10f2699041e4e43 |
completed | April 21, 2026, 1:41 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f5fa204d1c8190b441d4efd8d80940 |
completed | May 2, 2026, 1:20 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69f4807f8680819098a524158d049c63 |
completed | May 1, 2026, 10:29 a.m. |
Created at: April 21, 2026, 5:04 p.m.