Triple
T6250595
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Kelo v. City of New London |
E140035
|
entity |
| Predicate | concernsLegalConcept |
P61922
|
FINISHED |
| Object | public use |
—
|
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: public use | Statement: [Kelo v. City of New London, concernsLegalConcept, public use]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: concernsLegalConcept Context triple: [Kelo v. City of New London, concernsLegalConcept, public use]
-
A.
relatedLegalConcept
chosen
Indicates that one legal concept is connected or associated with another through a relevant legal relationship or context.
-
B.
legalConcept
Indicates a relationship where something is classified or treated as a concept defined and governed by law or legal theory.
-
C.
legalConstraint
Indicates that one entity imposes or is subject to a rule, restriction, or requirement defined by a legal or regulatory framework in relation to another entity or action.
-
D.
legalQuestion
Indicates that one entity poses or represents a question concerning legal rights, obligations, or interpretations to another entity or within a legal context.
-
E.
hasLegalRelevanceIn
Indicates that something is legally significant, applicable, or has consequences within a specified legal context, case, or jurisdiction.
- 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_69c008b4858c819095b0199114a9a87b |
completed | March 22, 2026, 3:20 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69c0633dde348190bbf02a943d94e3be |
completed | March 22, 2026, 9:46 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69c056037bf88190a0a3fe7429345d0b |
completed | March 22, 2026, 8:50 p.m. |
Created at: March 22, 2026, 4:24 p.m.