Triple
T29723831
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Lac Region |
E752125
|
entity |
| Predicate | insecurityLinkedTo |
P167638
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Boko Haram |
E289418
|
NE 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: Boko Haram | Statement: [Lac Region, insecurityLinkedTo, Boko Haram]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: insecurityLinkedTo Context triple: [Lac Region, insecurityLinkedTo, Boko Haram]
-
A.
relatedSecurity
Indicates that one security has a defined relationship or association with another security, such as dependency, linkage, or relevance.
-
B.
insecureAbout
Indicates that one entity feels uncertain, self-doubting, or lacking confidence regarding some aspect of another entity or itself.
-
C.
associatedWithCompromise
Indicates a relationship where an entity is linked to, involved in, or affected by a security compromise or breach.
-
D.
compromisedOn
Indicates that two or more parties reached a mutual agreement by each conceding or adjusting their original positions.
-
E.
hasSecurityRelationship
Indicates a relationship in which one entity provides, manages, or is otherwise linked to the security or protection of another entity.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (5 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_69f0d628c00c8190ab5ee7e423d7ec3c |
completed | April 28, 2026, 3:45 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f672fe1b2881909acfdfed7c4a1ac2 |
completed | May 2, 2026, 9:56 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_6a26f1afd5048190b5172b005c8d2d46 |
completed | June 8, 2026, 4:45 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69f6659f246081909821c5f452d14e8f |
completed | May 2, 2026, 8:59 p.m. |
| PDg | Predicate description generation | batch_69f6691da93081909deaf680614fc900 |
completed | May 2, 2026, 9:14 p.m. |
Created at: April 28, 2026, 7:38 p.m.