Triple
T34795356
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | R v Penguin Books Ltd |
E1003061
|
entity |
| Predicate | centralLegalIssue |
P113429
|
FINISHED |
| Object | definition of obscenity |
—
|
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: definition of obscenity | Statement: [R v Penguin Books Ltd, centralLegalIssue, definition of obscenity]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: centralLegalIssue Context triple: [R v Penguin Books Ltd, centralLegalIssue, definition of obscenity]
-
A.
mainLegalIssue
chosen
Indicates the primary legal question or dispute that is central to a case or legal matter.
-
B.
legalMatters
Indicates that one entity is involved with, concerned about, or responsible for legal issues, processes, or obligations related to another entity or context.
-
C.
hasLegalIssue
Indicates that an entity is involved in, associated with, or subject to a legal problem, dispute, or proceeding.
-
D.
legalDevelopment
Indicates the occurrence or progression of a change, action, or event within a legal context, such as new laws, rulings, or regulatory updates affecting legal status or practice.
-
E.
legalCase
Indicates a relationship where a formal legal dispute or proceeding exists between parties, typically adjudicated by a court or similar authority.
- 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_69f76db543808190b188c6c86a91491b |
completed | May 3, 2026, 3:45 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69fd7e364a648190a1e9e1d9fc76e99e |
completed | May 8, 2026, 6:09 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69fd7bb547608190a3b04dddbca6b8bc |
completed | May 8, 2026, 5:59 a.m. |
Created at: May 3, 2026, 3:59 p.m.