Triple
T33635516
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | People v. Pratt |
E861679
|
entity |
| Predicate | hasLegalDoctrineInvolved |
P90230
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Brady obligations regarding exculpatory evidence |
—
|
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: Brady obligations regarding exculpatory evidence | Statement: [People v. Pratt, hasLegalDoctrineInvolved, Brady obligations regarding exculpatory evidence]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: hasLegalDoctrineInvolved Context triple: [People v. Pratt, hasLegalDoctrineInvolved, Brady obligations regarding exculpatory evidence]
-
A.
involvedInLegalDoctrine
chosen
Indicates that an entity plays a role in the formation, interpretation, application, or development of a particular legal doctrine.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
legalDoctrineChallenged
Indicates that a particular legal doctrine is being disputed, questioned, or contested, typically through litigation or formal legal argument.
-
D.
legalDoctrineInfluenced
Indicates that one legal doctrine has shaped, informed, or contributed to the development or interpretation of another legal doctrine.
-
E.
legalPrecedentInvolved
Indicates that a particular legal precedent (prior court decision or ruling) is relevant to, cited in, or forms the basis for the current legal matter or action.
- 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_69f34981c54c81909b33c3fa2208a52d |
completed | April 30, 2026, 12:22 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69fdb04ed81c8190b8feea90c1c785a6 |
completed | May 8, 2026, 9:43 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69fda9d6c5148190a63205b6d9b0a1b4 |
completed | May 8, 2026, 9:16 a.m. |
Created at: May 1, 2026, 1:42 a.m.