Triple
T8083771
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Borda count |
E188679
|
entity |
| Predicate | violatesProperty |
P2111
|
FINISHED |
| Object |
Condorcet criterion
The Condorcet criterion is a voting system standard requiring that if a candidate would win every head-to-head contest against each other candidate, that candidate must be the overall election winner.
|
E711177
|
NE FINISHED |
How this triple was built (5 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: Condorcet criterion | Statement: [Borda count, violatesProperty, Condorcet criterion]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Condorcet criterion Context triple: [Borda count, violatesProperty, Condorcet criterion]
-
A.
Condorcet paradox
The Condorcet paradox is a voting theory phenomenon where collective preferences can become cyclic and inconsistent, even when individual voters’ preferences are perfectly rational and transitive.
-
B.
Borda count
The Borda count is a ranked voting method in which voters order candidates and points are assigned based on position in each ranking, with the candidate having the highest total score winning.
-
C.
Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem
The Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem is a fundamental result in social choice theory showing that every reasonable voting system with at least three options is susceptible to strategic manipulation by voters.
-
D.
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
Arrow’s impossibility theorem is a foundational result in social choice theory showing that no voting system can convert individual preferences into a collective ranking while simultaneously satisfying a set of seemingly reasonable fairness criteria.
-
E.
Sainte-Laguë method
The Sainte-Laguë method is a highest-averages system of party-list proportional representation that allocates seats more evenly between large and small parties than the d’Hondt method.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NEDg
Description generation
gpt-5.1
Instruction
Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. # Instructions Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential. # Response Format Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"
Input
Entity: Condorcet criterion Triple: [Borda count, violatesProperty, Condorcet criterion]
Generated description
The Condorcet criterion is a voting system standard requiring that if a candidate would win every head-to-head contest against each other candidate, that candidate must be the overall election winner.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Condorcet criterion Target entity description: The Condorcet criterion is a voting system standard requiring that if a candidate would win every head-to-head contest against each other candidate, that candidate must be the overall election winner.
-
A.
Condorcet paradox
The Condorcet paradox is a voting theory phenomenon where collective preferences can become cyclic and inconsistent, even when individual voters’ preferences are perfectly rational and transitive.
-
B.
Borda count
The Borda count is a ranked voting method in which voters order candidates and points are assigned based on position in each ranking, with the candidate having the highest total score winning.
-
C.
Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem
The Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem is a fundamental result in social choice theory showing that every reasonable voting system with at least three options is susceptible to strategic manipulation by voters.
-
D.
Arrow’s impossibility theorem
Arrow’s impossibility theorem is a foundational result in social choice theory showing that no voting system can convert individual preferences into a collective ranking while simultaneously satisfying a set of seemingly reasonable fairness criteria.
-
E.
Sainte-Laguë method
The Sainte-Laguë method is a highest-averages system of party-list proportional representation that allocates seats more evenly between large and small parties than the d’Hondt method.
- F. None of above. chosen
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: violatesProperty Context triple: [Borda count, violatesProperty, Condorcet criterion]
-
A.
violationOf
Indicates that one entity breaches, disobeys, or infringes upon a rule, law, agreement, or right associated with another entity.
-
B.
violatedPrinciple
chosen
Indicates that an entity has broken, disregarded, or acted contrary to a specified rule, norm, or guiding principle.
-
C.
violationContext
Indicates the specific circumstances, conditions, or situational factors under which a violation occurs or is considered to have occurred.
-
D.
allegedViolationSystem
Indicates a system is reported or suspected to have violated a rule, policy, or regulation, without the violation being legally or formally established.
-
E.
prohibits
Indicates that one entity forbids or disallows another entity from performing a specific action or being in a certain state.
- F. None of above.
Provenance (6 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_69ca82b662e88190b9323daab8c28a21 |
completed | March 30, 2026, 2:03 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69cb415e61ac81909e924aea69a7ff77 |
completed | March 31, 2026, 3:37 a.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69cc63ff37a88190a980e023a9b7c30c |
completed | April 1, 2026, 12:17 a.m. |
| NEDg | Description generation | batch_69cc68634dc88190bc9b9e0598929d4d |
completed | April 1, 2026, 12:35 a.m. |
| NED2 | Entity disambiguation (via description) | batch_69cc694d861c8190b504352c1fad2c36 |
completed | April 1, 2026, 12:39 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69cb049f1614819087360d1a4c6f0faa |
completed | March 30, 2026, 11:17 p.m. |
Created at: March 30, 2026, 5:29 p.m.