Triple
T31449965
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | sentencing remarks in R v Poumako |
E802294
|
entity |
| Predicate | legalSystemConcept |
P10240
|
FINISHED |
| Object | rule of law |
—
|
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: rule of law | Statement: [sentencing remarks in R v Poumako, legalSystemConcept, rule of law]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: legalSystemConcept Context triple: [sentencing remarks in R v Poumako, legalSystemConcept, rule of law]
-
A.
legalSystem
Indicates the formal framework of laws, rules, and institutions that governs how legal matters are defined, interpreted, and enforced within a society or jurisdiction.
-
B.
legalConcept
chosen
Indicates a relationship where something is classified or treated as a concept defined and governed by law or legal theory.
-
C.
legalSystemBasis
Indicates the foundational legal framework, tradition, or set of principles on which a legal system is based.
-
D.
legalSystemDepictedAs
Indicates that one entity portrays, represents, or characterizes a legal system in a particular way or form.
-
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.
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_69f348c5a6bc819092a557e95438976f |
completed | April 30, 2026, 12:19 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69fe920a437081908d5174e8cf7a53a6 |
completed | May 9, 2026, 1:46 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69fe919a9a6c8190acb4483f386e6db7 |
completed | May 9, 2026, 1:44 a.m. |
Created at: April 30, 2026, 9:12 p.m.