Triple
T6264931
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. |
E140389
|
entity |
| Predicate | dissentType |
P39427
|
FINISHED |
| Object | in part |
—
|
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: in part | Statement: [United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., dissentType, in part]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: dissentType Context triple: [United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., dissentType, in part]
-
A.
dissentingJustice
Indicates that a particular justice disagrees with the majority opinion or decision in a legal case.
-
B.
dissentClaimed
Indicates that an entity has expressed disagreement or opposition to a claim made by another entity.
-
C.
dissentingOpinionConcern
Indicates that one party holds a differing or opposing view and expresses concern or disagreement regarding another party’s position, decision, or statement.
-
D.
standardDiscussedInDissent
chosen
Indicates that a particular legal standard is examined or addressed within the dissenting opinion of a judicial decision.
-
E.
mayDissentOn
Indicates that an entity has the option or permission to formally disagree with or oppose another entity’s decision, opinion, 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_69c008cabc4081909723e2547c9d6cc0 |
completed | March 22, 2026, 3:20 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69c0639e64588190875e4e1e772fb336 |
completed | March 22, 2026, 9:48 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69c05606fb50819082d1a5a91e5030b6 |
completed | March 22, 2026, 8:50 p.m. |
Created at: March 22, 2026, 4:25 p.m.