Triple
T4396625
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Corrigan v. Buckley |
E99506
|
entity |
| Predicate | statusInLaterLaw |
P13710
|
FINISHED |
| Object | effectively undermined by later civil rights rulings |
—
|
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: effectively undermined by later civil rights rulings | Statement: [Corrigan v. Buckley, statusInLaterLaw, effectively undermined by later civil rights rulings]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: statusInLaterLaw Context triple: [Corrigan v. Buckley, statusInLaterLaw, effectively undermined by later civil rights rulings]
-
A.
statusInEnglishLaw
Indicates the legal standing, classification, or condition of something as defined within the framework of English law.
-
B.
laterStatus
chosen
Indicates that one entity represents a subsequent or resulting status or condition of another entity in time.
-
C.
statusInScotsLaw
Indicates that one entity holds a particular legal status, classification, or standing under the rules and doctrines of Scots law in relation to the other entity.
-
D.
courtStatus
Indicates the current legal or procedural state of a case or matter within a court system.
-
E.
appealStatus
Indicates the current state or outcome of an appeal within a review or decision process.
- 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_69b345506b408190b0e3dee616738a7d |
completed | March 12, 2026, 10:59 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69b352aca86c8190b5af7e6600072066 |
completed | March 12, 2026, 11:56 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69b34f597998819092477efdedb51427 |
completed | March 12, 2026, 11:42 p.m. |
Created at: March 12, 2026, 11:20 p.m.