[ { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk132", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Le pape Jean VIII le reçut à sa communion, le reconnut, lui écrivit ; et malgré ce huitiéme concile oecuménique, qui avait anathématisé ce patriarche, le pape envoya ses légats à un autre concile à Constantinople, dans lequel Photius fut reconnu innocent par quatre - cent évêques, dont trois - cent l' avaient auparavant condamné. Les légats de ce même siége de Rome, qui l' avaient anathématisé, servirent eux -mêmes à casser le huitiéme concile oecuménique. Combien tout change chez les hommes ! Combien ce qui était faux, devient vrai selon les tems ! Les légats de Jean VIII s' écrient en plein concile ; si quelqu' un ne reconnait pas Photius, que son partage soit avec Judas. le concile s' écrie, longues années au patriarche Photius, et au patriarche Jean. enfin à la suite des actes du concile on voit une lettre du pape à ce savant patriarche, dans laquelle il lui dit ; nous pensons comme vous... etc. il est donc clair que l' église romaine et la grecque pensaient alors différemment de ce qu' on pense aujourdhui. Il arriva depuis que Rome adopta la procession du pére et du fils ; et il arriva même qu' en 1274 l' empereur des grecs, Michel Paléologue, implorant contre les turcs une nouvelle croisade, envoya au second concile de Lyon, son patriarche et son chancelier, qui chantèrent avec le concile en latin, qui ex patre filioque procedit. mais l' église grecque retourna encor à son opinion, et sembla la quitter encor dans la réunion passagère qui se fit avec Eugène IV. Que les hommes aprennent de là à se tolerer les uns les autres. Voilà des variations et des disputes sur un point fondamental, qui n' ont ni excité de troubles, ni rempli les prisons, ni allumé les buchers. On a blâmé les déférences du pape Jean VIII pour le patriarche Photius ; on n' a pas assez songé que ce pontife avait alors besoin de l' empereur Basile. Un roi de Bulgarie, nommé Bogoris, gagné par l' habileté de sa femme qui était chrêtienne, s' était converti, à l' exemple de Clovis et du roi Egbert. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_photius", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Photius", "patriarche Photius" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q16869_constantinople", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q16869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Constantinople" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “les légats de ce même siége de Rome … envoyèrent à un autre concile à Constantinople, dans lequel Photius fut reconnu innocent par quatre‑cent évêques.” This indicates that a council was held in Constantinople and that the patriarch Photius himself was present there to be recognized. The text does not give an explicit date for this event, but it is clearly before the document’s publication date of 1756. Therefore there is direct evidence that Photius was physically present in Constantinople prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text reports a “concile à Constantinopole” where Photius was recognized innocent, but it does not provide any date for this event or any indication that it occurred within 30 days before the document’s publication date (1756). The only dated reference in the passage is “en 1274,” which is far earlier. Since there is no explicit mention of Photius being present in Constantinople during the required time window, we cannot confirm his presence with the necessary evidence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_michel_paleologue", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Michel Paléologue" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “en 1274 l’empereur des grecs, Michel Paléologue … envoya au second concile de Lyon, son patriarche et son chancelier.” This indicates that the emperor was in Constantinople (or at least in a position to dispatch his officials) and that he sent them to Lyon. There is no mention of him traveling or being present in Rome; indeed, the text does not reference any Roman activities by Michel Paléologue. Since the document’s publication date is 1756, the only relevant timeframe for presence would be before that. The absence of any evidence of his physical presence in Rome leads to a conclusion that he was not there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “en 1274 l’ empereur des grecs, Michel Paléologue, … envoya au second concile de Lyon…”. This indicates his activity in 1274 at the council of Lyon, not in Rome. The text contains no mention of Michel Paléologue being present in Rome or any event there near the publication date (1756). Since the required evidence is absent and the only reference to him concerns a different location and time, we cannot confirm his presence in Rome within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_jean", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jean VIII", "patriarche Jean", "pape Jean VIII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q16869_constantinople", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q16869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Constantinople" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes the Pope’s actions: he received a communion, wrote to the patriarch, and sent his legates to a council held in Constantinople. It does not state that the Pope himself traveled there or was physically present at the site. The only mention of the Pope’s presence is in Rome (e.g., “le concile s’ écrie, longues années au patriarche Photius, et au patriarche Jean”), and no other location is cited for his physical presence. Since the text provides no evidence that Jean VIII was in Constantinople before 1756, we conclude there is no support for such a claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the papacy and various ecumenical councils but does not state that Pope Jean VIII was physically present in Constantinople during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). The only mention of a location is “Constantinople” in reference to a different event, and there is no explicit statement linking Jean VIII’s presence to that city within the required timeframe. Therefore, the evidence does not support his physical presence at Constantinople during the specified period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_photius", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Photius", "patriarche Photius" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a church council, its legates from Rome, and the recognition of Photius as innocent. It notes that “le concile s’ écrie, longues années au patriarche Photius,” indicating that the council’s writings were produced at Photius (likely in Constantinople) rather than in Rome. The text does not state or imply that Photius himself was physically present in Rome; it only references his role as a patriarch and the council’s correspondence with him. No mention of a visit, residence, or any event involving Photius in Rome appears before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Photius was in Rome prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Pope John VIII and the patriarch Photius, noting that the pope “le reçut à sa communion” and that Photius had been recognized by bishops. However, it does not state that Photius himself was physically present in Rome during any specific timeframe close to 1756. The text merely references his presence in a theological context (“longues années au patriarche Photius”) without providing dates or an explicit location of his physical presence in Rome within the required 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore, there is no direct evidence that Photius was present in Rome during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_judas", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Judas" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the phrase “si quelqu' un ne reconnait pas Photius, que son partage soit avec Judas.” This is a conditional clause referring to a theological or liturgical discussion; it does not state that Judas himself was physically present in Rome. No other part of the text mentions Judas being at Rome or any event involving him there before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Judas was physically present in Rome prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Judas” only in a clause about a council: “si quelqu' un ne reconnait pas Photius, que son partage soit avec Judas.” It does not provide any explicit date or statement that Judas was physically present at Rome during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). The text refers to a council in Rome but gives no temporal anchor linking Judas to that location within the required timeframe. Therefore there is no evidence that Judas was present in Rome within the specified period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_jean", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jean VIII", "patriarche Jean", "pape Jean VIII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Le pape Jean VIII le reçut à sa communion, le reconnut, lui écrivit …” This indicates that the Pope himself was physically present in Rome to receive a person at his communion ceremony. The act of receiving someone at a communion is performed by the Pope while he is in Rome. Since this event occurs before the document’s publication date (1756), it provides direct evidence that Jean VIII was indeed in Rome prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes events involving Pope Jean VIII and mentions that “les légats de ce même siége de Rome” were present, but it does not provide any specific dates for those meetings or for the Pope’s presence in Rome. The only dated reference in the text is to 1274 (the year of an earlier ecumenical council), which lies far outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1756. Because there is no explicit statement that Jean VIII was physically present in Rome within the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_eugene", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Eugène IV" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes “la réunion passagère qui se fit avec Eugène IV,” indicating a meeting that involved Eugene IV, but it does not specify the location of that meeting as Rome. No other part of the text mentions Eugene IV being in Rome or traveling there before 1756. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that he was physically present at Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the phrase “la réunion passagère qui se fit avec Eugène IV.” This indicates a meeting involving Eugene IV, but it does not specify that the meeting took place in Rome or provide any date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1756. No other part of the text mentions Eugene IV being physically present in Rome during that period. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that he was in Rome within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_judas", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Judas" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q16869_constantinople", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q16869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Constantinople" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the phrase “si quelqu' un ne reconnait pas Photius, que son partage soit avec Judas.” This sentence refers to a theological or liturgical discussion about sharing communion with Judas; it does not describe any physical presence of Judas in Constantinople. No other part of the text mentions Judas traveling to or being present at Constantinople. Therefore there is no evidence that Judas was physically present at the location before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains a reference to “Judas” only in the phrase “si quelqu’ un ne reconnait pas Photius, que son partage soit avec Judas.” This sentence is part of a discussion about the concile and does not specify any location or date associated with Judas. No other mention of Judas appears in the text that ties him to Constantinople or provides a temporal context within 30 days before the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence in the text that Judas was physically present at Constantinople during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_basile", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "empereur Basile" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a Greek emperor named Michel Paléologue and his actions regarding a concile in Lyon, but it does not state that Emperor Basile was physically present in Rome at any time before 1756. The only mention of “l’empereur Basile” is in the sentence “on n’ a pas assez songé que ce pontife avait alors besoin de l’ empereur Basile,” which indicates a need for the emperor’s support, not his presence in Rome. No other part of the text provides any indication that Emperor Basile was in Rome before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses church councils, papal legates, and historical figures such as Michel Paléologue, but it does not mention Emperor Basile at all, nor does it provide any date or location linking him to Rome within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1756). The only reference to an emperor is “Michel Paléologue” in a context of a 1274 event, which is far earlier than the required timeframe. Since there is no explicit statement that Emperor Basile was present in Rome during the relevant period, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_egbert", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roi Egbert" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a Bulgarian king named Bogoris who converted to Christianity, citing the conversion of Clovis and the king Egbert as examples. It does not state that Egbert himself was in Rome or that he visited Rome at any time before 1756. The only reference to Rome is about papal legates and councils; there is no mention of Egbert’s presence there. Therefore, there is no evidence in the text indicating that roi Egbert was physically present in Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the papacy, a concile, and various historical figures such as Photius, Jean VIII, and a Bulgarian king named Bogoris who converted “à l’exemple de Clovis et du roi Egbert.” It does not state that King Egbert himself was in Rome or provide any date linking him to Rome. The only mention of Rome is related to the papacy and conciles, not to Egbert’s presence there. Since no explicit evidence places king Egbert in Rome within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1756), we cannot confirm his physical presence at that location.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_bogoris", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Bogoris" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the papacy, the ecumenical council, and various historical figures such as Photius, Pope John VIII, Emperor Michael Palaiologus, and a Bulgarian king named Bogoris who converted to Christianity. It does not mention any travel or presence of Bogoris in Rome; there is no reference to him being in Rome or traveling there before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore, there is no evidence that Bogoris was physically present in Rome prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions a Bulgarian king named Bogoris who converted, but it provides no indication that he was physically present in Rome or that his activities were tied to Rome during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The text only references his conversion and compares him to other historical figures; there is no mention of a location (Rome) or any event involving Bogoris at that site within the required timeframe. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence in the document that Bogoris was present in Rome during the specified period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_clovis", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Clovis" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a Bulgarian king named Bogoris who converted as an example of the Frankish kings Clovis and Egbert. It does not state that Clovis himself was physically present in Rome, nor does it provide any historical reference to such a presence before 1756. The text is focused on papal conciles and related events; there is no mention of Clovis traveling or residing in Rome. Therefore, the document contains no evidence that Clovis was at Rome prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses a historical event involving the Pope and a concile, but it does not contain any statement that Clovis was physically present in Rome. The only reference to “Clovis” is as an example of conversion (“à l’ exemple de Clovis et du roi Egbert”), with no mention of his location or date. Since there is no explicit evidence that he was in Rome within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756), we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore, the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_michel_paleologue", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Michel Paléologue" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q16869_constantinople", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q16869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Constantinople" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “il arriva même qu’en 1274 l’empereur des grecs, Michel Paléologue, implorant contre les turcs une nouvelle croisade, envoya au second concile de Lyon, son patriarche et son chancelier.” This indicates that Michel Paléologue was the emperor of the Greeks (i.e., in Constantinople) at the time he sent a delegation to the council. Since 1274 is well before the document’s publication date of 1756, this provides direct evidence that he was physically present in Constantinople prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “en 1274 l’empereur des grecs, Michel Paléologue … envoya au second concile de Lyon” but it does not state that he was physically present in Constantinople at any time close to the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to his presence is an action taken 300 years earlier. No explicit mention of him being in Constantinople within the 30‑day window before 1756 appears, so we cannot confirm his presence there during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_eugene", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Eugène IV" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q16869_constantinople", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q16869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Constantinople" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a series of ecumenical councils and the activities of various popes, patriarchs, and emperors, but it does not state that Pope Eugène IV himself attended any council or was physically present in Constantinople prior to 1756. The only mention of Eugène IV is his participation in a Latin liturgy at a council convened by Emperor Michel Paléologue; the text identifies the location as Lyon, not Constantinople. No other sentence indicates that Eugène IV visited or was in Constantinople before the document’s publication date. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses several church events and individuals, including Eugene IV, but it does not state that he was physically present in Constantinople during the period leading up to the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to Eugene IV is a mention of “la réunion passagère qui se fit avec Eugène IV,” which lacks any location or temporal detail. No sentence links him to Constantinople, nor does it provide a date within 30 days before 1756. Consequently, the text provides no explicit evidence that Eugene IV was in Constantinople during that window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_bogoris", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Bogoris" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q16869_constantinople", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q16869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Constantinople" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Bogoris solely as “un roi de Bulgarie” (a Bulgarian king) who converted, citing examples of other European rulers. It contains no mention of him traveling to or residing in Constantinople, nor any reference to his presence there before the document’s publication date of 1756. Since the text provides no evidence of Bogoris being physically present at that location prior to 1756, we cannot confirm such a visit.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage refers to “Un roi de Bulgarie, nommé Bogoris…” but provides no indication that he was in Constantinople at any time, nor does it give a date or event linking him to the city. The only mention of Constantinople is in a separate clause about a concile and its participants, which does not involve Bogoris. Since there is no explicit statement that Bogoris was physically present in Constantinople within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756), we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv-NIL_basile", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "empereur Basile" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk132.tsv_Q16869_constantinople", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q16869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Constantinople" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a papal concilium and the relationship between the Roman Church, the Greek Patriarch Photius, and an emperor named Michel Paléologue. It notes that “ce pontife avait alors besoin de l’ empereur Basile,” implying that Emperor Basil was consulted or relied upon, but it does not state that he physically attended any event in Constantinople or that he was present there at all. No mention of a meeting, ceremony, or travel by Emperor Basile to Constantinople appears before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting his presence in Constantinople prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the papacy, a concile in Constantinople, and the Greek emperor Michel Paléologue, but it contains no mention of “empereur Basile” being present in Constantinople at any time near 1756. The only reference to an emperor is to Michel Paléologue, who acted in 1274, far earlier than the publication date. Since there is no explicit statement that Basile was in Constantinople within the 30‑day window before 1756, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk1069", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " C' est encor ici une de ces révolutions où le caractère des peuples qui la firent, eut plus de part que le caractère de leurs chefs : car Myri - Weis ayant été assassiné et remplacé par un autre barbare nommé Maghmud, son propre neveu, qui n' était âgé que de dix - huit ans, il n' y avait pas d' apparence que ce jeune homme pût faire beaucoup par lui -même, et qu' il conduisit ces troupes indisciplinées de montagnards féroces, comme nos généraux conduisent des armées réglées. Le gouvernement de Hussein était méprisé, et la province de Candahar ayant commencé les troubles, les provinces du Caucase du côté de la Georgie se révoltèrent aussi. Enfin Maghmud assiégea Ispahan en 1722. Scha - Hussein lui remit cette capitale, abdiqua le royaume à ses pieds, et le reconnut pour son maître, trop heureux que Maghmud daignât épouser sa fille. Tous les tableaux des cruautés et des malheurs des hommes que nous examinons depuis le tems de Charlemagne, n' ont rien de plus horrible que les suites de la révolution d' Ispahan. Maghmud crut ne pouvoir s' affermir qu' en faisant égorger les familles des principaux citoyens. La Perse entiére a été trente années ce qu' avait été l' Allemagne avant la paix de Westphalie, ce que fut la France du tems de Charles VI, l' Angleterre dans les guerres de la rose rouge et de la rose blanche. Mais la Perse est tombée d' un état plus florissant dans un plus grand abîme de malheurs. La religion eut encor part à ces désolations. Les aguans tenaient pour Omar, comme les persans pour Ali ; et ce Maghmud chef des aguans mêlait les plus lâches superstitions aux plus détestables cruautés. Il mourut en démence en 1725 après avoir désolé la Perse. Un nouvel usurpateur de la nation des aguans lui succéda ; il s' appellait Asraf. La désolation de la Perse redoublait de tous côtés. Les turcs l' inondaient du côté de la Georgie, l' ancienne Colchide. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_scha_hussein", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Scha - Hussein" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_georgie", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Georgie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “le gouvernement de Hussein” and the revolts in the Caucasus region of Georgia, but it provides no indication that Hussein himself was physically present in Georgia. It only notes that his government was disrespected and that the province of Candahar began troubles; the revolt is described as occurring in the Caucasus side of Georgia. There is no mention of Hussein traveling to or being in Georgia before 1756, nor any event linking him directly to that location. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at “Georgie” prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Scha‑Hussein” only in the context of a capital being handed over to him, with no reference to his presence or location in Georgia. The only mention of Georgia is that its provinces revolted, but this does not link Scha‑Hussein to that place nor provide any date within the 30‑day window before the publication (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Scha‑Hussein was physically present in Georgia during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_scha_hussein", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Scha - Hussein" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q42053_ispahan", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q42053", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Ispahan" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Scha - Hussein lui remit cette capitale” (Scha‑Hussein sent this capital) and that Maghmud had besieged Ispahan in 1722. This implies that Scha‑Hussein was physically present at Ispahan to hand over the city, which occurred well before the document’s publication date of 1756. Therefore there is explicit evidence of his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Maghmud assiégea Ispahan en 1722. Scha‑Hussein lui remit cette capitale…” This indicates that Scha‑Hussein was present in Ispahan during the siege of 1722, but it provides no date or evidence linking him to any event near the document’s publication date (1756). The only temporal reference in the text is “en 1722,” which lies far outside the required 30‑day window preceding 1756. Consequently there is no explicit mention of Scha‑Hussein being at Ispahan within that timeframe, so we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_maghmud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Maghmud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_georgie", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Georgie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Maghmud’s actions: he besieged Ispahan in 1722 and later received a capital from Hussein, but it contains no mention of him traveling to or being present in Georgia. The only reference to Georgia is that the province there experienced revolts, not that Maghmud visited it. Since there is no evidence of his physical presence in Georgia before the document’s publication date (1756), we conclude he was not there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains several references to “Maghmud” and to “Georgie,” but it does not state that Maghmud was physically present in Georgia at any time within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only mention of Maghmud is his assassination, his siege of Ispahan in 1722, and his death in 1725. The reference to “Georgie” appears only as part of a broader description of revolts (“les provinces du Caucase du côté de la Georgie se révoltèrent aussi”), with no explicit link to Maghmud’s presence there. Because the required evidence is absent, we cannot confirm that Maghmud was in Georgia within the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_maghmud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Maghmud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q8614_westphalie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q8614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Westphalie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Maghmud’s actions in Persia and his death, but it contains no reference to him being present at or near the Peace of Westphalie (1648). The only mention of “Westphalie” is a historical comparison about Persia’s duration relative to Germany before that peace. Since there is no textual evidence linking Maghmud to Westphalie, we cannot infer his presence there prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Maghmud’s activities in Ispahan (e.g., “Maghmud assiégea Ispahan en 1722”) and references the peace of Westphalia only as a historical comparison (“La Perse entière a été trente années ce qu’ avait été l’ Allemagne avant la paix de Westphalie”). No sentence or clause in the text states that Maghmud was physically present at Westphalia, nor does it provide any date linking him to that location. The only mention of Westphalia is unrelated to Maghmud’s presence, and there is no evidence that he was there within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at Westphalie during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_maghmud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Maghmud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q42053_ispahan", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q42053", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Ispahan" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Maghmud assiégea Ispahan en 1722.” The verb *assiégea* means he personally led an assault on the city, which requires his physical presence there. Since 1722 is well before the document’s publication date of 1756, this evidence confirms that Maghmud was indeed present in Ispahan at some point prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document states that “Maghmud assiégea Ispahan en 1722,” indicating a military action that occurred thirty‑four years before the document’s publication date (1756). The required window for presence is the 30‑day period ending on the publication date, i.e., roughly September 1955 to September 1756. No part of the text mentions Maghmud being in Ispahan during that timeframe; it only references his earlier siege and later events unrelated to the specified window. Therefore there is no evidence that Maghmud was physically present at Ispahan within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles VI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains a historical reference: “la France du temps de Charles VI.” This sentence merely notes that the period of Persia corresponds to the time when Charles VI reigned in France; it does not describe any travel, presence, or event involving Charles VI himself. No other part of the text mentions Charles VI being physically present in France before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at that location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “la France du tems de Charles VI” as a historical reference, indicating that the French state existed during his reign. However, it does not contain any explicit statement or contextual clue that Charles VI himself was physically present in France within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only dates referenced are 1722 and 1725, far outside the required timeframe. Consequently there is no evidence of his presence in France during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles VI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q21_angleterre", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q21", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Angleterre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the political situation in Persia and mentions “la France du temps de Charles VI” as a historical reference, but it does not state that Charles VI himself was physically present in England or that he visited there. The only mention of England is in the context of its wars (“l’ Angleterre dans les guerres de la rose rouge et de la rose blanche”), which refers to English involvement, not to Charles VI’s presence. No dates, travel narratives, or explicit statements indicating his physical presence in England appear before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is no evidence that Charles VI was at the specified location prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses historical events and mentions “la France du tems de Charles VI” as a reference to the French monarchy, but it does not state that Charles VI himself was physically present in England during any period. The only mention of England is the phrase “l’ Angleterre dans les guerres de la rose rouge et de la rose blanche,” which refers to England’s involvement in wars, not to Charles VI’s presence there. No date or explicit statement links Charles VI to a location in England within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore, there is no evidence that Charles VI was present at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_asraf", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Asraf" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q83311_perse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q83311", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Perse" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “Un nouvel usurpateur de la nation des aguans lui succéda ; il s’ appellait Asraf.” It identifies Asraf as a successor to Maghmud, but it provides no indication that he was physically present in Perse at any time before the document’s publication date (1756). The text only records his succession and name; there is no mention of him traveling to or residing in Perse. Therefore, based on the available evidence, we cannot confirm that Asraf was in Perse prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document states that “Il mourut en démence en 1725 après avoir désolé la Perse.” This refers to Maghmud’s death and does not mention Asraf at all. The only reference to Asraf is the sentence “Un nouvel usurpateur de la nation des aguans lui succéda ; il s’ appellait Asraf,” which merely identifies him as a successor without providing any date, location, or evidence of his presence in Perse. There is no explicit statement that Asraf was physically present in Perse within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Consequently, the text does not provide sufficient evidence to confirm his presence at that time and place.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_hussein", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Hussein" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q18869_caucase", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q18869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Caucase" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “the government of Hussein was despised” and that the Caucasus province revolted, but it does not state that Hussein himself was physically present in the Caucasus at any time before 1756. The text only mentions his rule and the revolt; there is no mention of him traveling to or residing in the region. Therefore there is no direct evidence supporting the claim that Hussein was in the Caucasus prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “the government of Hussein was despised” and that the Caucasus provinces were in revolt, but it does not state that Hussein himself was physically present in the Caucasus during any time period. Moreover, there is no date or explicit mention linking Hussein’s presence to the Caucasus within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). The only reference to Hussein is a political description, not an event of his being in that location at the required time. Therefore we cannot confirm his physical presence there during the specified period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_omar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Omar" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q83311_perse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q83311", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Perse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “the people (aguans) held for Omar” and compares him to Ali, but it does not state that Omar himself was physically present in Persia or that he visited the region. The only reference to Omar is a comparative statement about his status among the aguan community; there is no mention of an event, travel, or presence at Perse before 1756. Consequently, there is no textual evidence supporting Omar’s physical presence in Persia prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Maghmud’s actions in Persia (Ispahan) and mentions “Omar” only as a reference to the “aguans” who held him, with no indication that Omar himself was physically present in Persia. The text contains no date or event linking Omar to Perse within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1756 (i.e., between 1755‑09‑28 and 1756‑09‑28). Since there is no explicit evidence that Omar was in Persia during that period, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_hussein", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Hussein" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_candahar", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "province de Candahar" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Le gouvernement de Hussein était méprisé, et la province de Candahar ayant commencé les troubles…” This indicates that the government of Hussein was viewed negatively in the context of the province, but it does not provide any explicit statement or implication that Hussein himself was physically present there. The text merely reports a political situation; it does not describe Hussein’s presence, travel, or activities within the province. Since no evidence of Hussein being at the location is found before the document’s publication date (1756), we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states “Le gouvernement de Hussein était méprisé, et la province de Candahar ayant commencé les troubles…” This indicates that the government led by Hussein was disrespected and that the province of Candahar experienced unrest. However, it does not explicitly say that Hussein himself was physically present in or within the province of Candahar during any time period. No date or explicit location linking Hussein to that province is provided, nor is there a mention of him being there within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location and date range.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles VI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses historical events and figures related to Persia, Maghmud, and the region of Ispahan. It mentions “La France du tems de Charles VI” as a reference to French history during his reign, but it does not state that Charles VI himself was physically present in Germany or any other location at that time. The only mention of “Allemagne” is in a comparative historical context (“la Perse était trente années ce qu’ avait été l’Allemagne avant la paix de Westphalie”), which refers to the German lands as a separate entity, not to Charles VI’s presence there. No sentence or clause indicates Charles VI traveling to Germany before 1756. Therefore, based on the text alone, there is no evidence that he was physically present in Germany prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the existence of “l’Allemagne” as a political entity preceding the Peace of Westphalia and notes that it was comparable in duration to the Persian Empire during Charles VI’s reign. It does not contain any statement indicating that Charles VI himself was physically present in Allemagne, nor does it provide dates or events linking his presence to the 30‑day window ending on the publication date (1756). The only reference to Charles VI is a historical context about his rule, not an indication of his location. Therefore there is no evidence that he was in Allemagne within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles VI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q8614_westphalie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q8614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Westphalie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the historical period of France under Charles VI and mentions “la France du temps de Charles VI” as a reference point for French history, but it does not state that Charles VI himself was physically present at Westphalia. There is no mention of him traveling to or being in Westphalia, nor any event linking his presence there. The only reference to Westphalia is the phrase “la paix de Westphalie,” which denotes a diplomatic treaty, not a location where Charles VI was present. Consequently, the text provides no evidence that Charles VI was at Westphalia before the document’s publication date of 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the phrase “la France du temps de Charles VI,” indicating that Charles VI was a historical figure whose reign spanned centuries before 1756, but it does not state or imply his physical presence at Westphalie. Moreover, there is no mention of any event involving Westphalie within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (i.e., between roughly December 16, 1755 and January 16, 1756). Since the text provides no explicit evidence that Charles VI was physically present at Westphalie during that period, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_asraf", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Asraf" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_colchide", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ancienne Colchide" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “les turcs l’ inondaient du côté de la Georgie, l’ ancienne Colchide,” referring to the Turks flooding the region near ancient Colchide. It does not mention Asraf’s presence in or around this location; it only identifies him as a successor who succeeded Maghmud after his death in 1725. No sentence links Asraf to ancient Colchide, nor provides any date or event indicating his physical presence there before the document’s publication (1756). Therefore there is no textual evidence that Asraf was physically present at the ancient Colchide prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains no explicit statement that Asraf was physically present at “ancienne Colchide” within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (i.e., roughly late August to early September 1755). The only reference to the ancient Colchide is a general description of Turkish activity in Georgia (“Les turcs l’ inondaient du côté de la Georgie, l’ ancienne Colchide”), which does not link Asraf’s presence or any date near 1756. Consequently there is no evidence that Asraf was at that location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_maghmud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Maghmud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q18869_caucase", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q18869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Caucase" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Maghmud’s activities as a ruler of Persia: he besieged Ispahan in 1722, was assassinated in 1725, and later was succeeded by Asraf. It also notes that the Caucasus region (specifically the Georgian side) experienced revolts, but it does not state that Maghmud himself was present there or that he visited the area. No date or event links him to the Caucasus before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence in the text that Maghmud was physically present in the Caucasus prior to the document’s publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Maghmud’s actions, such as his siege of Ispahan in 1722 and his death in 1725, but it contains no statement that he was physically present in the Caucasus during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (i.e., between roughly September 4 and October 4 1756). The only reference to the Caucasus is a mention of revolts there, without any link to Maghmud. Consequently, there is no evidence in the text that confirms his presence at the specified location within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles VI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1069.tsv_Q83311_perse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q83311", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Perse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the political situation of Persia and mentions “la France du temps de Charles VI” only as a reference to the period during his reign (ending with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648). It does not state that Charles VI himself was physically present in Persia, nor does it provide any evidence of his presence there. The text is focused on events involving Maghmud and other figures; there is no mention of Charles VI traveling to or residing in Perse before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore, based on the available information, we cannot confirm that he was at Perse.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses events in Persia (Perse) during the early‑18th century, focusing on Maghmud’s reign and related political developments. It contains a reference to “la France du tems de Charles VI,” which merely notes that France existed under Charles VI; it does not describe any travel or presence of Charles VI in Persia. No sentence in the text indicates that Charles VI was physically present in Perse, nor does it provide dates linking his presence to the period within 30 days before the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that Charles VI was in Perse during that window.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk253", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Il justifie ce qu' on dit des armées des rois de Perse, qui avaient inondé la Gréce, et ce qu' on raconte des transplantations de tant de barbares. Les français enfin, et sur - tout Raimond De Toulouse, se trouvèrent par - tout sur le même terrain que les gaulois méridionaux avaient parcouru treize - cent ans auparavant, quand ils allèrent ravager l' Asie Mineure et donner leur nom à la province de Galatie. Les historiens nous informent rarement comment on nourrissait ces multitudes. C' était une entreprise qui demandait autant de soins que la guerre même. Venise ne voulut pas d' abord s' en charger. Elle s' enrichissait plus que jamais par son commerce avec les mahométans, et craignait de perdre les privilèges qu' elle avait chez eux. Les génois, les pisans et les grecs équipèrent des vaisseaux chargés de provisions, qu' ils vendaient aux croisés en cotoyant l' Asie Mineure. La fortune des génois s' en accrut, et on fut étonné bientôt après de voir Génes devenue une puissance. Le vieux turc Soliman soudan de Syrie, qui était sous les califes de Bagdat ce que les maires avaient été sous la race de Clovis, ne put avec le secours de son fils résister au premier torrent de tous ces princes croisés. Leurs troupes étaient mieux choisies que celles de Pierre L' Hermite, et disciplinées autant que le permettait la licence et l' entousiasme. On prit Nicée, on battit deux fois les armées commandées par le fils de Soliman. Les turcs et les arabes ne soûtinrent point dans ces commencemens le choc de ces multitudes couvertes de fer, et de leurs grands chevaux de bataille, et des forêts de lances auxquelles ils n' étaient point accoutumés. Bohémond eut l' adresse de se faire céder par les croisés le fertile pays d' Antioche. Baudouin alla jusqu' en Mésopotamie s' emparer de la ville d' édesse, et s' y forma un petit état. Enfin on mit le siége devant Jérusalem, dont le calife d' égypte s' était saisi par ses lieutenants. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_soliman", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Soliman soudan de Syrie", "Soliman" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q739037_nicée", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q739037", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Nicée" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Soliman soudan de Syrie as a Turc under the caliphate of Baghdad, but it contains no mention of him traveling to or being physically present in Nicée. The only reference to Nicée is that “On prit Nicée, on battit deux fois les armées commandées par le fils de Soliman,” which indicates his son’s army was engaged there, not Soliman himself. Since the text provides no evidence of Soliman’s presence at Nicée before 1756, we conclude he was not physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Le vieux turc Soliman soudan de Syrie … ne put avec le secours de son fils résister au premier torrent de tous ces princes croisés.” It does not state that Soliman was physically present at Nicée. The only reference to Nicée is in a separate clause: “On prit Nicée, on battit deux fois les armées commandées par le fils de Soliman,” which describes an action taken against the son’s forces, not Soliman himself being there. No date or explicit presence of Soliman at Nicée within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1756) is provided. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the requirement for a direct statement that Soliman was present at Nicée in that timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_baudouin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Baudouin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q200441_antioche", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q200441", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Antioche" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Baudouin alla jusqu’ en Mésopotamie s’ emparer de la ville d' édesse, et s' y forma un petit état.” It describes his activity in Mesopotamia and the city of Edessa, but it does not mention Baudouin ever being at Antioche. There is no textual evidence linking him to Antioche before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore we cannot confirm that he was physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Baudouin alla jusqu’ en Mésopotamie s’ emparer de la ville d' édesse, et s' y forma un petit état.” It mentions Baudouin’s activity in Mesopotamia and the city of Edessa, but it does not mention Antioche at all. Moreover, there is no date associated with this action that falls within the 30‑day window ending on 1756 (i.e., between 1755‑12‑16 and 1756‑01‑16). Since the text provides no explicit evidence of Baudouin’s presence at Antioche during that period, we cannot confirm his physical presence there. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_soliman", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Soliman soudan de Syrie", "Soliman" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q51614_asie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q51614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Asie Mineure" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Soliman soudan de Syrie as a Turc under the caliphate of Baghdad who resisted “the first torrent of all these princes crossed.” It does not mention any travel, presence, or activity in Asia Minor (Asie Mineure). The only reference to Asie Mineure is elsewhere in the text concerning other actors. Therefore there is no textual evidence that Soliman was physically present at Asie Mineure before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Le vieux turc Soliman soudan de Syrie” but only in the context of his military situation and does not state that he was physically present at Asie Mineure. There is no mention of a specific time or date linking him to that location, nor any indication that he visited it within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). Because the text provides no explicit evidence of Soliman’s presence in Asie Mineure during that period, we cannot confirm his physical presence there. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_calife_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "calife d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q1218_jérusalem", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1218", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Jérusalem" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “On mit le siége devant Jérusalem, dont le calife d' égypte s' était saisi par ses lieutenants.” The term *siége* refers to a siege that preceded the capture of Jerusalem. If the caliph was “saisi” (seized) by his lieutenants during this operation, it implies he was physically present in or near Jerusalem at that time, as only someone who could be captured would need to be there. The text does not provide any contradictory information indicating otherwise. Therefore we have direct evidence that the caliph of Egypt was present in Jerusalem before the document’s publication date (1756).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “le calife d’ égypte s’était saisi par ses lieutenants” during a siege in front of Jerusalem. This indicates that the caliph was physically present in Jerusalem at some point, but it provides no explicit date or temporal marker that ties this event to the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). Without a specific date or reference that places the presence within that narrow timeframe, we cannot confirm that the caliph was indeed present in Jerusalem during the required period. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the strict criteria for a positive classification.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_calife_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "calife d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q11767_mésopotamie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q11767", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Mésopotamie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “le calife d’ égypte” only in a sentence about Jerusalem: “Enfin on mit le siége devant Jérusalem, dont le calife d’ égypte s’ était saisi par ses lieutenants.” There is no mention of the caliph being present or acting in Mesopotamia. The only reference to Mesopotamia concerns Baudouin’s actions there (“Baudouin alla jusqu’ en Mésopotamie”). Thus the text provides no evidence that the caliph was physically present at Mésopotamie before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses various historical figures and events, including the “calife d’ égypte” being captured by his lieutenants. However, it does not state that this caliph was physically present in Mésopotamie, nor does it provide any date or time reference linking him to that location within a 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1756). The only mention of Mésopotamie is in a separate sentence about Baudouin’s actions there. Because the text lacks explicit evidence of the caliph’s presence at Mésopotamie during the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_baudouin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Baudouin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_edesse", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ville d' édesse" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states explicitly that “Baudouin alla jusqu’ en Mésopotamie s' emparer de la ville d' édesse, et s' y forma un petit état.” This indicates that Baudouin physically traveled to and took control of the city of édesse before the document’s publication date (1756). The wording confirms his presence at the location in question. No contradictory evidence is present.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Baudouin alla jusqu’ en Mésopotamie s' emparer de la ville d' édesse,” indicating Baudouin’s presence in the city, but it provides no date or temporal marker linking this event to the publication year 1756. The required window is the 30 days preceding the document’s publication (approximately August 24–September 24, 1756). Since there is no explicit evidence that Baudouin was in the city within that timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_bohemond", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Bohémond" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q11767_mésopotamie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q11767", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Mésopotamie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “Baudouin” traveling to Mesopotamia and establishing a small state, but it does not name or reference any individual named “Bohémond.” Since the text provides no indication that Bohémond himself was present in Mesopotamia before 1756, there is no evidence supporting his presence at that location. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Baudouin alla jusqu’en Mésopotamie s’emparer de la ville d’ Édesse, et s’y forma un petit état.” It refers to Baudouin, not Bohémond. There is no mention of Bohémond being in Mesopotamia or any other location during the relevant timeframe (the 30‑day window ending on 1756). Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that Bohémond was present at the specified location within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_baudouin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Baudouin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q11767_mésopotamie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q11767", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Mésopotamie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Baudouin alla jusqu’ en Mésopotamie s’ emparer de la ville d’ Édesse, et s’ y forma un petit état.” This sentence explicitly records Baudouin’s presence in Mesopotamia (the region) and his control of the city of Edessa. Since no date is provided within the text but the document itself was published in 1756, this event must have occurred before that publication date. Therefore there is direct textual evidence that Baudouin was physically present at Mésopotamie prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Baudouin alla jusqu’en Mésopotamie s’emparer de la ville d’ Édesse…” but it provides no explicit temporal marker (e.g., a month or year) indicating when this action occurred. The document’s publication date is 1756, so the required window for presence would be roughly September 16 – October 16, 1755 to September 16, 1756. Since the text contains no date or time reference that places Baudouin in Mesopotamia within this 30‑day interval, we cannot confirm his physical presence during that period. Therefore the evidence is insufficient.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_calife_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "calife d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_edesse", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ville d' édesse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a siege of Jerusalem in which “le calife d’ égypte s’était saisi par ses lieutenants.” This sentence only mentions the caliph’s presence at Jerusalem and his subordination to his lieutenants; it does not indicate any travel or activity in the city of Edessa. The only reference to the city of Edessa appears elsewhere, describing Baudouin’s actions there, but no connection is made between the caliph and that location. Since the text provides no evidence that the caliph was physically present in Edessa before 1756, we conclude that the claim lacks support.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains two separate statements about the city of “ville d’ édesse.” First, it says that Baudouin captured the city and formed a small state there. Second, it mentions “le calife d’ égypte s’était saisi par ses lieutenants,” referring to the Egyptian caliph being seized in Jerusalem. There is no indication that the Egyptian caliph was present in or at the city of “ville d’ édesse.” Moreover, the text provides no explicit date or temporal marker that would place any event within 30 days before the publication date (1756). Consequently, there is no evidence that “calife d’ égypte” was physically present in “ville d’ édesse” during the required time window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_hermite", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Hermite" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q739037_nicée", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q739037", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Nicée" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the capture of Nicée and the battles fought against the son of Soliman, but it does not name or describe any involvement of “Hermite” in those events. The only mention of Hermite is that his troops were compared to those of Soliman’s son (“Les troupes étaient mieux choisies que celles de Pierre L’ Hermite”), indicating a separate military context and no reference to him being present at Nicée. Since the text provides no evidence of Hermite’s presence in or near Nicée before 1756, we conclude that there is no support for his physical presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains the name “Pierre L’ Hermite” only in a sentence describing his troops: “et disciplinées autant que le permettait la licence et l’ entousiasme.” It does not state that Hermite was at Nicée, nor does it provide any date or time reference linking him to that location. The passage about Nicée mentions the action of taking and fighting armies commanded by Soliman’s son, but no mention of Hermite’s presence there. Since there is no explicit evidence that Hermite was physically present in Nicée within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756), we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_soliman", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Soliman soudan de Syrie", "Soliman" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q1449_génes", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1449", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Génes" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Soliman soudan de Syrie’s political situation under the caliphate of Baghdad and his military actions against “princes croisés,” but it contains no mention of him traveling to or being present in Genes. The only reference to Genes is a separate sentence about its transformation into a powerful city, unrelated to Soliman. Since there is no textual evidence linking Soliman’s presence at Genes before the document’s publication date (1756), we conclude that he was not physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Le vieux turc Soliman soudan de Syrie… ne put avec le secours de son fils résister au premier torrent de tous ces princes croisés.” It does not state that Soliman was in Génes, nor does it provide any date or event linking him to Génes within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1756). The only reference to Génes is elsewhere (“La fortune des génois s’en accrut…”), but this concerns a different person. Since there is no explicit evidence that Soliman was physically present in Génes during the required timeframe, we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_raimond_de_toulouse", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Raimond De Toulouse" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q41_gréce", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Gréce" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Les français enfin, et sur - tout Raimond De Toulouse, se trouvèrent par - tout sur le même terrain que les gaulois méridionaux avaient parcouru treize‑cent ans auparavant…”. This indicates that Raimond De Toulouse was physically present in Greece (the same terrain the Gauls had traversed) at some point before the document’s publication date of 1756. The text provides explicit evidence of his presence, so we can conclude with certainty.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Raimond De Toulouse” as being on the same terrain in Greece, but it provides no specific date or temporal reference that ties this event to the period within 30 days before the document’s publication (1756). Without an explicit date, we cannot confirm that his presence falls within the required window. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the criteria for a positive classification.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_bohemond", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Bohémond" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q200441_antioche", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q200441", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Antioche" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Bohémond eut l’ adresse de se faire céder par les croisés le fertile pays d' Antioche.” This indicates that Bohémond was physically present in the region of Antioche at some time before the document’s publication date (1756). The wording implies he had an intention to be given over by the crusaders there, which requires his presence. Therefore there is direct evidence supporting his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Bohémond eut l’ adresse de se faire céder par les croisés le fertile pays d' Antioche.” This indicates Bohémond had an address or claim to the fertile country of Antioche, but it does not provide a specific date or explicit statement that he was physically present there. The text contains no temporal markers (e.g., dates, months) nor any mention of Bohémond’s presence in Antioche within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1756. Without such evidence, we cannot confirm his physical presence at Antioche during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_clovis", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Clovis" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q1449_génes", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1449", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Génes" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “les maires avaient été sous la race de Clovis,” indicating that mayors were under the rule of Clovis, but it does not state or imply that Clovis himself was physically present in Genes. No other part of the text mentions Clovis traveling, residing, or visiting Genes before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Clovis was at Genes prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains references to various individuals and places, but it does not state that the person “Clovis” was physically present in “Génes” during the period from 1755‑12‑16 to 1756‑01‑16. The only mention of Clovis is a historical reference (“ce que les maires avaient été sous la race de Clovis”), which describes his rule under the Franks and has no connection to Génes or any recent activity. No sentence in the passage links Clovis with Génes, nor does it provide a date that places him there within the required 30‑day window before the publication date (1756). Therefore, there is no explicit evidence of his presence at Génes during that timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_bohemond", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Bohémond" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_edesse", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ville d' édesse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Baudouin alla jusqu’en Mésopotamie s’emparer de la ville d’ édesse, et s’y forma un petit état.” The only person mentioned in this context is Baudouin, not Bohémond. There is no mention of Bohémond being present at the city of édesse or any indication that he was there before 1756. Therefore, the text provides no evidence that Bohémond was physically present at that location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states: “Baudouin alla jusqu’en Mésopotamie s’emparer de la ville d’ édesse, et s’y forma un petit état.” It mentions Baudouin, not Bohémond, and provides no date or explicit timeframe for this action. The text does not contain any reference to Bohémond being in the city of édesse within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no evidence that Bohémond was present at that location during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv-NIL_calife_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "calife d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk253.tsv_Q200441_antioche", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q200441", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Antioche" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “On mit le siége devant Jérusalem, dont le calife d’ égypte s’ était saisi par ses lieutenants.” This indicates that the Egyptian caliph was captured by his lieutenants while in Jerusalem. There is no mention of him being present or acting at Antioche; indeed, the only reference to Antioche in the text concerns Baudouin’s actions there (“Baudouin alla jusqu’ en Mésopotamie s’ emparer de la ville d’ édesse”). Consequently, the text provides no evidence that the caliph was physically present in Antioche before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage refers to “le calife d’ égypte s’ était saisi par ses lieutenants,” indicating that the caliph was under control by his officers, but it provides no mention of him being in Antioche or any date near 1756. The only location associated with Antioche is the fertile country mentioned elsewhere (“le fertile pays d’ Antioche”), not linked to the caliph’s presence. Since there is no explicit statement that the caliph was physically present at Antioche within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Perouse Voyage chunk4461", "time_period": "1797", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1797", "language": "fr", "text": "Anselme, la généalogie, la naissance, les noms des rois, des princes, des grands seigneurs ; l' Encyclopédie ne leur doit rien à ce titre, mais elle doit tout aux Arts & aux talens. Albert Durer, né à Nuremberg en 1470, & dont j' ai parlé comme peintre au mot École, ne laisse presque à desirer dans les ouvrages de son tems, dont les Italiens eux -mêmes profiterent, sinon que cet illustre artiste eût connu l' antique, pour donner à ses figures autant d' élégance que de vérité. Aldegraf, ( Albert ) né en Westphalie, disciple de Durer, en a saisi la maniere, & s' est fait autrefois une grande réputation. Audran, ( Gérard ) mort en 1703 âgé de soixante trois ans, a exercé son burin à multiplier les grands morceaux du Poussin, de Mignard, & autres. On connoît ses magnifiques estampes des batailles d' Alexandre, qu' il a gravées d' après les desseins de le Brun : l' oeuvre de cet artiste est recommandable par la force & le bon goût de sa maniere. Baldini, ( Baccio ) florentin, fut éleve de Maso Finiguerra, inventeur du secret de la Gravure en cuivre, & fit paroître encore quelque chose de mieux que son maître. Belle, ( Etienne de la ) né à Florence en 1610, mort dans la même ville en 1664, acquit une maniere d' eau - forte très - expéditive, & d' un si grand effet, que quelques curieux le mettent au - dessus de Callot. Si la maniere de ce maître n' est point si finie de gravure ni si précise de dessein que celle de Callot, sa touche est plus libre, plus savante, & plus pittoresque : peu de gens l' ont surpassé pour l' esprit, la finesse, & la legereté de la pointe. Il a généralement négligé les piés & les mains de ses petites figures, mais ses têtes ont une noblesse & une beauté de caractere séduisante ; son oeuvre est très - considérable. Bénédette Castiglione, peintre & graveur, né à Gènes en 1616, mort à Mantoue en 1670, a gravé à l' eau forte plusieurs pieces, où il a mis autant d' esprit que de goût. Le clair - obscur de ses estampes fait le charme des connoisseurs. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q5580_albert_durer", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q5580", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Albert Durer" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q2090_nuremberg", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2090", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Nuremberg" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly names Albert Dürer as “né à Nuremberg en 1470,” indicating that he was born in Nuremberg. Being born there means he physically occupied the city at that time, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is direct evidence of his presence in Nuremberg prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage only states Albert Dürer’s birthplace (“né à Nuremberg en 1470”) and that the author has spoken of him as a painter at “l’ École.” It provides no date or event indicating that Dürer was physically present in Nuremberg within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between 15 August and 31 July 1797). Because there is no explicit evidence of his presence at that location during that period, we cannot confirm it. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_durer", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Durer" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q8614_westphalie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q8614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Westphalie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Albert Dürer as “né à Nuremberg en 1470,” indicating his birthplace and likely residence, not Westphalia. The only mention of Westphalia concerns Aldegraf (Albert), who is described as being born there and a disciple of Durer; this does not imply that Durer himself ever visited or was physically present in Westphalia. No other part of the text references Dürer’s presence at Westphalie, nor any travel or activity there. Therefore there is no evidence that Dürer was at Westphalie before the document’s publication date (1797).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Albert Dürer was born in Nuremberg and refers to him as a painter, but it contains no mention of Dürer being in Westphalie during any time period. The only reference to Westphalie is to “Aldegraf, (Albert) né en Westphalie,” which describes a different individual. Since there is no explicit statement that Dürer was physically present in Westphalie within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1797, we cannot confirm his presence at that location during that timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_audran_gerard_", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Audran , ( Gérard )" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q8614_westphalie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q8614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Westphalie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Audran (Gérard) as a painter who died in 1703, but it does not mention any connection to Westphalie. The only reference to Westphalie in the text is for Aldegraf (Albert), who was born there. Since Audran’s biography contains no indication of his presence or residence in Westphalie before the document’s publication date (1797), there is no evidence supporting that he was physically present at that location prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies Audran (Gérard) as a painter who died in 1703 and notes his activity, but it does not provide any explicit statement that he was physically present in Westphalie during the period leading up to the document’s publication date. The text contains no mention of a location or a date within roughly one month before 1797 (i.e., between August 28 and September 28, 1796). Since there is no evidence that Audran was in Westphalie during that window, the claim cannot be confirmed.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q630165_maso_finiguerra", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q630165", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Maso Finiguerra" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q2044_florence", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2044", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Florence" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Baldini, ( Baccio ) florentin, fut éleve de Maso Finiguerra…”. The term “florentin” indicates Baldini was from Florence and that he studied under Maso Finiguerra. For a teacher to instruct a pupil in Florence, the teacher must have been physically present there at some point before Baldini’s apprenticeship. Therefore there is textual evidence that Maso Finiguerra was in Florence prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Baldini, a Florentine artist, was a pupil of Maso Finiguerra. It does not provide any explicit statement or date indicating that Maso himself was physically present in Florence during the period leading up to 1797 (the 30‑day window). The text merely identifies Maso as Baldini’s teacher and mentions his Florentine origin, but it lacks a direct evidence of Maso’s presence at the location within the required timeframe. Therefore there is no explicit support for Maso Finiguerra being in Florence within approximately one month before the document’s publication date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_benedette_castiglione", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Bénédette Castiglione" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q6247_mantoue", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q6247", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Mantoue" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Bénédette Castiglione … mort à Mantoue en 1670.” This indicates that she lived in and was physically present in Mantoue at the time of her death, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is direct evidence that she was indeed at the specified location prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that Bénédette Castiglione “mort à Mantoue en 1670,” indicating her death in that city in the year 1670. The document’s publication date is given as 1797, so the required window for presence is from roughly 1767 to 1797 (the 30 days preceding the publication). Since Castiglione died more than a century earlier and there is no mention of her being alive or present in Mantoue during that period, the text provides no evidence of her physical presence at the specified location within the required timeframe. Therefore we cannot confirm her presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_aldegraf_albert_", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Aldegraf , ( Albert )" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q8614_westphalie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q8614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Westphalie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Aldegraf, ( Albert ) né en Westphalie…”. The phrase “né en Westphalie” indicates his place of birth is Westphalie. Being born in a location means the person was physically present there at the time of his birth, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is explicit evidence that Aldegraf was present in Westphalie prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that Aldegraf (Albert) was “né en Westphalie,” indicating his place of birth there. However, it provides no explicit mention of him being physically present in Westphalie at any time close to the document’s publication date (1797). The text only notes his birthplace and his reputation as a disciple of Dürer; there is no reference to an event, visit, or activity that would demonstrate his presence in Westphalie within the 30‑day window preceding 1797. Consequently, the criteria for confirming his presence at the specified location are not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_benedette_castiglione", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Bénédette Castiglione" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q1449_gènes", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1449", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Gènes" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Bénédette Castiglione … né à Gènes en 1616, mort à Mantoue en 1670.” This indicates that he was born in Gènes (Gênes) before the document’s publication date of 1797. Being born at a location constitutes physical presence there, so the evidence confirms his presence at Gènes prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text provides Bénédette Castiglione’s birthplace (Gènes) and death place (Mantoue), but it contains no explicit statement that she was physically present in Gènes within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1797. The passage only records her birth year, not any event or location tied to that timeframe. Consequently there is no evidence supporting her presence at Gènes during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_baldini_baccio_", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Baldini , ( Baccio )" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q2044_florence", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2044", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Florence" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly names Baldini as “Baldini, ( Baccio ) florentin,” indicating that he is Florentine and was a student of Maso Finiguerra in Florence. The phrase “fut élève” (“was a student”) implies his physical presence at the school in Florence during the period before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore there is direct textual evidence that Baldini was physically present in Florence prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies Baldini (Baccio) as “Florentine,” indicating his origin or nationality, but it does not provide any explicit statement that he was physically present in Florence at a specific time near the publication date of 1797. No temporal reference (e.g., a year, month, or event within the 30‑day window) is attached to his presence in Florence. Therefore there is no direct evidence that Baldini was in Florence within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_callot", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Callot" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q2044_florence", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2044", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Florence" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses various artists and their biographical details, but it only mentions “Callot” as a comparative figure regarding his style of engraving. It does not state that Callot ever visited or worked in Florence; there is no reference to him being present at the city, nor any mention of a location in Florence associated with him. Since the text provides no evidence of Callot’s physical presence in Florence before 1797, we conclude that he was not physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses several artists and their biographical details, but it contains no mention of Callot being in Florence or any event that would place him there during the month preceding 1797. The only reference to Florence is “Baldini, ( Baccio ) florentin,” which refers to a different individual. Since the text provides no evidence of Callot’s presence at that location within the required time window, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_mignard", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mignard" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q8614_westphalie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q8614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Westphalie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that Aldegraf (Albert) was born in Westphalie, but it does not state that Mignard himself ever visited or resided there. The only reference to Mignard is as a collaborator whose works were used by Audran; this indicates his artistic activity and reputation, not physical presence at the location. Since no explicit mention of Mignard’s presence in Westphalie before 1797 appears, we cannot confirm that he was there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “Mignard” only in the phrase “les grands morceaux du Poussin, de Mignard, & autres,” indicating that Audran worked with Mignard’s works. It does not state that Mignard himself was physically present anywhere, let alone in Westphalie. The only mention of Westphalie is regarding Aldegraf being born there (“né en Westphalie”). No sentence links Mignard to Westphalie or provides a date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1797). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Mignard was present in Westphalie during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_belle_etienne_de_la", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Belle , ( Etienne de la" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q2044_florence", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2044", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Florence" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Belle, ( Etienne de la ) né à Florence en 1610, mort dans la même ville en 1664.” This indicates that Belle was born in Florence and later died there. Both the birth (1610) and death (1664) occurred well before the document’s publication date of 1797, confirming his physical presence in Florence at those times. Therefore the evidence supports that Belle was indeed present in Florence prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies Belle (Etienne de la) as being born and died in Florence, but it provides only his birth year (1610) and death year (1664). It contains no explicit statement that he was physically present in Florence during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1797. Since there is no mention of a visit, event, or activity linking him to Florence within that timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence based on the text.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_durer", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Durer" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q2090_nuremberg", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2090", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Nuremberg" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Albert Durer, né à Nuremberg en 1470…”. Being born in a city means the individual was physically present there at the moment of birth, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is direct evidence that Durer was present in Nuremberg prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies Albert Dürer as being born in Nuremberg and mentions his work at a school, but it provides no date or evidence of him physically being in Nuremberg during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). The text is an older biographical reference with no contemporary mention of his presence. Therefore there is no explicit indication that Dürer was present in Nuremberg within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q41554_poussin", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q41554", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Poussin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q8614_westphalie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q8614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Westphalie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses several artists and their birthplaces or activities. It notes that “Aldegraf, ( Albert ) né en Westphalie” but does not mention Poussin at all, nor any reference to him being in Westphalie. There is no sentence indicating that Poussin was physically present there before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore, based on the text alone, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses several artists and their biographical details. It notes that Aldegraf was born in Westphalie, but it does not state that Poussin himself was present there. The only reference to Poussin is a mention of Audran’s works about his paintings, which provides no evidence of Poussin’s presence or any date near the publication window (August 28 – September 28 1796). Therefore there is no explicit textual evidence that Poussin was in Westphalie within the required 30‑day period before the document’s publication date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q271676_brun", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q271676", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Brun" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q2044_florence", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2044", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Florence" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses several artists and their origins, noting that Baldini was Florentine, but it does not state that Brun himself ever visited or worked in Florence. The only mention of “le Brun” is a reference to his artistic work (“l’oeuvre de cet artiste”), which provides no evidence of physical presence at the location. Since there is no explicit statement or contextual clue indicating Brun’s presence in Florence before 1797, we cannot confirm that he was physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses several artists and includes a reference to “le Brun” (the artist) as part of a sentence about his works, but it does not state that Brun himself was in Florence or provide any date near the publication year 1797. The text only mentions locations such as Nuremberg, Westphalia, Florence, Mantoue, etc., for other individuals, and there is no explicit mention of Brun’s presence in Florence within a timeframe close to 1797. Therefore, there is no evidence that Brun was physically present at the specified location during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q5580_albert_durer", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q5580", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Albert Durer" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q8614_westphalie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q8614", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Westphalie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text identifies Albert Dürer as “né à Nuremberg en 1470,” indicating his birthplace and implying he was based in Nuremberg rather than Westphalia. The only reference to Westphalia is to Aldegraf (Albert), who is described as being from that region and a disciple of Dürer, but the passage does not state that Dürer himself ever visited or resided there. No other part of the document mentions Dürer’s presence in Westphalia before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence that Albert Dürer was physically present at Westphalie prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies Albert Dürer as “né à Nuremberg en 1470,” indicating his place of birth, but it contains no statement that he was physically present in Westphalie during any period close to the document’s publication date (the window is Aug 28 1796 – Sep 28 1797). No other sentence mentions him traveling or being in Westphalie. Therefore there is no explicit evidence of his presence at that location within the required timeframe, and we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv-NIL_mignard", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mignard" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4461.tsv_Q2044_florence", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2044", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Florence" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses several artists, but the only mention of “Mignard” appears in a sentence about Audran’s work: “audien, (Gérard) mort en 1703 … a exercé son burin à multiplier les grands morceaux du Poussin, de Mignard, & autres.” This indicates that Mignard was an artist whose works were reproduced, but it provides no information about his physical presence in Florence. The text also notes that “Belle” (Etienne de la) was born and died in Florence, yet this is a different individual. No other part of the document references Mignard being in Florence or traveling there. Therefore there is no evidence in the text that Mignard was physically present at Florence before 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains the name “Mignard” only as part of a reference to his paintings (“…de Mignard”). It does not state that he was physically present in Florence, nor does it provide any date or location tied to such an event. The only mention of Florence is in connection with other individuals (e.g., Baldini). Since there is no explicit evidence that Mignard was in Florence within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1797), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk35", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Les succès de ce peuple conquérant semblent dûs plutôt à l' entousiasme qui les anime, et à l' esprit de la nation, qu' à ses conducteurs : car Omar est assassiné par un esclave perse en 653. Otman son successeur l' est en 655 dans une émeute. Ali ce fameux gendre de Mahomet n' est élu, et ne gouverne qu' au milieu des troubles. Il meurt assassiné au bout de cinq ans comme ses prédécesseurs, et cependant les armes musulmanes sont toujours heureuses. Cet Ali que les persans révèrent aujourd'hui, et dont ils suivent les principes en oposition à ceux d' Omar, obtint enfin le califat, et transféra le siége des califes de la ville de Médine, où Mahomet est enseveli, dans la ville de Couffa, sur les bords de l' Euphrate : à peine en reste - t -il aujourd'hui des ruines. C' est le sort de Babylone, de Séleucie, et de toutes les anciennes villes de la Caldée, qui n' étaient bâties que de briques. Il est évident que le génie du peuple arabe mis en mouvement par Mahomet fit tout de lui -même pendant près de trois siécles, et ressembla en cela au génie des anciens romains. C' est en effet sous Valid le moins guerrier des califes, que se font les plus grandes conquêtes. Un de ses généraux étend son empire jusqu' à Samarkande en 707. Un autre attaque en même tems l' empire des grecs vers la mer Noire. Un autre en 711 passe d' égypte en Espagne soumise aisément tour à tour par les carthaginois, par les romains, par les goths et vandales, et enfin par ces arabes qu' on nomme maures. Ils y établirent d' abord le royaume de Cordoüe. Le sultan d' égypte secoue à la vérité le joug du grand calife de Bagdat, et Abdérame gouverneur de l' Espagne conquise ne reconnait plus le sultan d' égypte : cependant tout plie encor sous les armes musulmanes. Cet Abdérame, petit - fils du calife Hésham, prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d' Arragon. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q9458_mahomet", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q9458", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mahomet" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_medine", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ville de Médine" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “où Mahomet est enseveli” – i.e., Mahomet is buried in the city of Medina. Being buried implies physical presence at that place before his death, which certainly occurred well before 1756. Therefore there is explicit evidence that Mahomet was physically present in the city of Medina prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses early Islamic history and mentions that “Mahomet est enseveli” in the city of Medina, but it does not state that Mahomet himself was physically present there during any specific time period close to 1756. The text only provides a historical fact about his burial place; it contains no contemporary reference indicating Mahomet’s presence at Medina within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (i.e., between September 28, 1755 and September 28, 1756). Therefore there is no evidence that Mahomet was present in “ville de Médine” during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_sultan_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "sultan d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q29_espagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q29", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Espagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Le sultan d’ égypte secoue à la vérité le joug du grand calife de Bagdat, et Abdérame gouverneur de l’Espagne conquise ne reconnait plus le sultan d’ égypte.” This sentence indicates a diplomatic or political situation: the Sultan of Egypt is being challenged by Abdérame, who governs Spain. It does not state that the Sultan himself was physically present in Spain; it only mentions his recognition status. No other part of the text provides any indication that the Sultan visited or resided in Spain before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that the sultan d’ égypte was in Spain prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the sultan of Egypt and various historical events, but it contains no statement that the sultan was physically present in Spain or any location within Spain during a timeframe close to 1756. Moreover, the only dates mentioned in the text (e.g., 653, 655, 707) are far earlier than the publication date of 1756, so there is no evidence that the sultan’s presence in Spain falls within the required 30‑day window. Therefore, the claim cannot be supported by the text.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_omar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Omar" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_couffa", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ville de Couffa" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Omar est assassiné par un esclave perse en 653.” This indicates Omar’s death occurred in 653, and there is no mention of him being physically present in Couffa at any time before his death. The later reference to the caliphate seat being transferred to Couffa concerns Ali, not Omar. Since Omar died decades earlier (in 653) and the text provides no evidence that he ever visited or was in Couffa, we conclude there is no support for his presence at that location before the document’s publication date of 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical events and mentions Omar’s assassination in 653, but it does not state that Omar was present in “ville de Couffa” or any other location near that city within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to Couffa concerns Ali transferring the caliphate seat there; no sentence links Omar to that place. Therefore, there is no explicit evidence of Omar’s presence at the specified location in the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q9458_mahomet", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q9458", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mahomet" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_couffa", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ville de Couffa" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the early Islamic conquests and notes that “the seat of the caliph was transferred from Medina to the city of Couffa.” It explicitly states that Mahomet is buried in Medina, not that he himself visited or resided there. No sentence in the text indicates Mahomet’s physical presence in Couffa; it only mentions the relocation of the political capital. Since the document provides no evidence of Mahomet being in Couffa before its publication date (1756), we conclude that his presence is not supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses early Islamic history: it notes that Mahomet is buried in Medina (“où Mahomet est enseveli”) and that the seat of caliphate was transferred to Couffa, but it does not state that Mahomet himself ever visited or resided there. Moreover, the text contains no date or event linking Mahomet’s presence at Couffa to any period near 1756; the events described are from the 7th century, far earlier than the publication date. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence in the document that Mahomet was physically present in “ville de Couffa” within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between September 16 1755 and September 16 1756). Therefore we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_abderame", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Abdérame" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q29_espagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q29", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Espagne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Cet Abdérame … prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d’ Arragon.” The verb *prend* indicates that Abdérame personally seized and ruled these territories. Since the conquest of Castile, Navarre, Portugal, and Aragon required physical presence in Spain, this evidence confirms that he was physically present there before the document’s publication date (1756). No contradictory information is provided; thus we can conclude with certainty that his presence in Spain precedes 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Abdérame gouverneur de l’ Espagne conquise,” indicating that he held a governorship over Spain at some point, but it provides no date or temporal marker associated with this event. The document’s content is historical and does not contain any explicit reference to Abdérame being in Spain within the 30‑day window ending on 1756 (i.e., between 1755‑09‑24 and 1756‑09‑24). Because there is no evidence of his presence at that specific location during that period, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_hesham", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "calife Hésham" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q200262_navarre", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q200262", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Navarre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Cet Abdérame, petit‑fils du calife Hésham, prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d’ Arragon.” This indicates that the grandson (Abdérame) is the one who acquired and ruled over Navarre. It does not mention or imply that the grandfather, calife Hésham, himself was physically present in Navarre at any time before 1756. The text only records Hésham’s lineage; it provides no evidence of his presence in Navarre. Therefore there is no textual support for the claim that calife Hésham was in Navarre prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Cet Abdérame, petit‑fils du calife Hésham, prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre…”. This indicates that the grandson of Caliph Hésham (Abdérame) seized Navarre, but it provides no evidence that Hésham himself was physically present in Navarre. Moreover, there is no date or temporal reference linking Hésham’s presence to any event within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). Consequently, we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_abderame", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Abdérame" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q200262_navarre", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q200262", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Navarre" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Abdérame, petit‑fils du calife Hésham, prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d’ Arragon.” The verb *prend* (he takes) indicates that Abdérame was the governor of these territories at some point before the document’s publication. Since the text explicitly names Navarre among the lands he governed, it provides direct evidence that he was physically present in Navarre prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Abdérame … prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d’ Arragon,” but it provides no date or time reference for this action. The document’s publication date is 1756, and the required window is the 30‑day period ending on that date (i.e., between 28 Sep 1755 and 28 Sep 1756). Since the text contains no explicit mention of Abdérame being in Navarre within this timeframe—only a generic claim about his conquests without dates—the criteria for confirming presence are not met. Therefore we cannot assert that he was physically present at Navarre during the specified window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_sultan_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "sultan d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q79_égypte", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q79", "loc_mentions_list": [ "égypte" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Le sultan d' égypte secoue à la vérité le joug du grand calife de Bagdat,” which indicates the sultan is physically present in Egypt, shaking off the rule of another ruler. This implies he was in Egypt at some point prior to the document’s publication date (1756). The text provides no contradictory evidence that he was elsewhere; it simply records his presence there. Therefore we can conclude that the sultan d' égypte was indeed present in Egypt before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the sultan of Égypte, but it provides no explicit date or temporal marker that places him in Egypt within a month preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The text is written about events centuries earlier (e.g., “en 653”, “en 655”) and does not contain any reference to 1756, nor does it describe the sultan being physically present in Egypt at that time. Therefore there is no evidence that the person was present at the specified location within the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_hesham", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "calife Hésham" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q45_portugal", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q45", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Portugal" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Abdérame, petit‑fils du calife Hésham, prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d’ Arragon.” This indicates that Abdérame was present in Portugal to seize the kingdom, but it does not state or imply that his father, Caliph Hésham, himself visited or was physically present there. The text provides no evidence of Hésham’s presence at Portugal before 1756; it merely records a later descendant’s actions. Therefore there is no direct support for the claim that calife Hésham was in Portugal prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the life and deeds of several historical figures, including “calife Hésham,” but it does not provide any evidence that he was physically present in Portugal within a month before the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to him is as the father of Abdérame, with no mention of his location or a temporal link to Portugal. Since there is no explicit statement indicating Hésham’s presence in Portugal during the required time window, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_abderame", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Abdérame" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q45_portugal", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q45", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Portugal" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Abdérame … prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d' Arragon.” The verb *prend* (he took) indicates that Abdérame was physically present in Portugal at the time of his conquest. Since this event occurred before the document’s publication date (1756), it provides direct evidence of his presence there. Therefore we can conclude that Abdérame was indeed in Portugal prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Abdérame … prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d’ Arragon,” indicating he controlled or was present in Portugal at some historical time. However, the text contains no date associated with this action and no reference to 1756 or any period within a month before that year. The only dates mentioned are from the early Islamic era (e.g., 653, 655). Because there is no explicit evidence of Abdérame’s presence in Portugal near the publication date, we cannot confirm his physical presence within the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_abderame", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Abdérame" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q4040_arragon", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q4040", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Arragon" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Cet Abdérame … prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d' Arragon.” The verb *prend* (he takes) indicates that he seized control of the kingdom of Arragon at some point before the text’s publication. Since the document is a medieval account and its date is well before 1756, this implies Abdérame was physically present in Arragon during his conquest. Therefore there is explicit evidence that he was in Arragon prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Abdérame, petit‑fils du calife Hésham, prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d’ Arragon.” This indicates he seized Arragon at some point in his reign. However, the text contains no explicit date or temporal marker associated with this action, nor any reference to a specific time within 30 days before the document’s publication date of 1756. Without a dated statement that places Abdérame physically present in Arragon during that window, we cannot satisfy the requirement for evidence of presence within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q9458_mahomet", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q9458", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mahomet" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q200969_caldée", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q200969", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Caldée" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the fate and legacy of several historical figures and places, but it does not contain any statement indicating that Mahomet himself was physically present in Caldée. The only reference to “Caldée” is a description of its ancient cities being built of bricks; there is no mention of Mahomet visiting or residing there. Since the text provides no evidence of his presence at that location before 1756, we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the early Islamic caliphate and mentions “Caldée” only in a generic historical context (“C’est le sort de Babylone, de Séleucie, et de toutes les anciennes villes de la Caldée…”). It does not state that Mahomet himself was present there; instead it notes that Mahomet is buried in Medina. The text contains no date or event linking Mahomet to Caldée within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1756). Therefore, there is no explicit evidence of Mahomet’s presence at Caldée during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_sultan_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "sultan d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q200262_navarre", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q200262", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Navarre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Cet Abdérame, petit‑fils du calife Hésham, prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d' Arragon.” The verb *prend* (“takes”) indicates that the sultan of Egypt was physically present in Navarre at the time he seized those territories. Since this event occurred well before the document’s publication date (1756), it provides direct evidence that the sultan of Egypt was indeed in Navarre prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses early Islamic rulers and their actions, but it contains no mention of the “sultan d’ égypte” being present in Navarre or any date that places him there near 1756. The only dates cited are from the 7th century (e.g., 653, 655), far outside the required one‑month window before the document’s publication date of 1756. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence in Navarre within that timeframe, we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_sultan_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "sultan d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q45_portugal", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q45", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Portugal" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Cet Abdérame, petit‑fils du calife Hésham, prend les royaumes de Castille, de Navarre, de Portugal, d' Arragon.” The verb *prend* (takes) indicates that the sultan personally seized or controlled Portugal during his campaigns. Since this event occurred in the early medieval period—well before 1756—the presence of the sultan in Portugal is historically attested. Therefore there is direct evidence that the “sultan d' égypte” was physically present at Portugal prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the history of various caliphs, generals, and conquests in the 7th‑century Islamic world. It mentions “the sultan d’ Égypte” only in the context of his political actions (e.g., shaking off the influence of a caliph from Baghdad). There is no reference to this person traveling or being present in Portugal, nor any date that places him there within 30 days before the publication date of 1756. The text’s dates are centuries earlier (e.g., 653, 655, 707) and unrelated to Portugal. Consequently, there is no evidence that “sultan d’ Égypte” was physically present in Portugal within the required time window.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q9458_mahomet", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q9458", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mahomet" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv_Q34589_euphrate", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q34589", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Euphrate" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “the seat of the caliph from Medina … was transferred to the city of Couffa, on the banks of the Euphrate.” It explicitly states that Mahomet is buried in Medina and does not mention him being physically present at or near the Euphrate. The text only describes a relocation of an administrative center; it provides no indication that Mahomet himself visited or resided there before 1756. Therefore, there is no evidence supporting his presence at the specified location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical events concerning Mahomet (Muhammad) and mentions his burial site in Medina, as well as the location of the city of Couffa on the banks of the Euphrates. It does not state that Mahomet himself was present at the Euphrates within a month before the document’s publication date (1756). The text is from the 7th century and contains no contemporary evidence of Mahomet’s presence in that location near the specified timeframe. Therefore, there is no explicit indication that Mahomet was physically present at the Euphrates during the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_omar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Omar" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk35.tsv-NIL_medine", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ville de Médine" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the life of Omar, noting that he was assassinated in 653, but it provides no indication that he ever visited or resided in the city of Medina. The only mention of Medina appears later concerning Ali’s caliphate and the relocation of the seat of power there. Since the text contains no evidence linking Omar to Medina before its publication date (1756), we cannot conclude that Omar was physically present at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical figures such as Omar, but it only notes that he was assassinated in 653 CE; there is no mention of him being physically present in the city of Medina or any event involving him near the year 1756. The location “ville de Médine” appears later in the text concerning the caliphate’s seat, but it does not link Omar to that place nor provide a date within the required 30‑day window before the document’s publication (i.e., between 1726 and 1756). Consequently, there is no explicit evidence in the text confirming Omar’s presence at the specified location during the relevant timeframe.", "CORRECT": false } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk204", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Deux légats l' y déposent ; deux députés de la diéte, envoyés par son fils, lui arrachent les ornemens impériaux. Bientôt après, échapé de sa prison, pauvre, errant et sans secours, il mourut à Liége plus misérable encor que Grégoire VII et plus obscurément, après avoir si longtems tenu les yeux de l' Europe ouverts sur ses victoires, sur ses grandeurs, sur ses infortunes, sur ses vices et ses vertus. Il s' écriait en mourant : Dieu des vengeances, vous vengerez ce parricide. de tout tems les hommes ont imaginé que Dieu exauçait les malédictions des mourans, et surtout des péres. Erreur utile et respectable, si elle arrêtait le crime. Une autre erreur plus généralement répandue parmi nous faisait croire que les excommuniés étaient damnés. Le fils d' Henri IV mit le comble à son impieté en affectant la piété atroce de déterrer le corps de son pére inhumé dans la cathédrale de Liége, et de le faire porter dans une cave à Spire. Ce fut ainsi qu' il consomma son hypocrisie dénaturée. CHAPITRE 37 De l' empereur Henri V et de Rome, jusqu' à Fréderic I. Ce même Henri V qui avait détrôné et exhumé son pére, une bulle du pape à la main, soûtint les mêmes droits de Henri IV contre l' église, dès qu' il fut maître. Déja les papes savaient se faire un apui des rois de France contre les empereurs. Les prétentions de la papauté attaquaient, il est vrai, tous les souverains ; mais on ménageait par des négociations ceux qu' on insultait par des bulles. Les rois de France ne prétendaient rien à Rome. Ils étaient voisins et jaloux de l' Allemagne. Ils étaient donc les alliés naturels des papes. Aussi Pascal II vint en France, et implora le secours du roi Philippe : ses successeurs en usèrent souvent de même. Les domaines que possédait le st siége, le droit qu' il reclamait en vertu des prétendues donations de Pepin et de Charlemagne, la donation réelle de la comtesse Matilde, ne faisaient point encor du pape un souverain puissant. Toutes ces terres étaient ou contestées ou possédées par d' autres. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roi Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Pascal II vint en France, et implora le secours du roi Philippe : ses successeurs en usèrent souvent de même.” This indicates that Pascal’s visit to France was accompanied by a request for assistance from the French king Philippe. The act of requesting help implies that Philippe was physically present in France at that time, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1756. Therefore there is explicit textual evidence supporting Philippe’s presence in France prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “le roi Philippe” only in the context of Pascal’s request for his assistance; it does not state that Philippe himself was physically present in France at that time. Moreover, there is no explicit date or temporal marker linking Philippe’s presence to a specific period within 30 days before the document’s publication (1756). Because the text provides no direct evidence of Philippe being in France during that window, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V", "Henri IV", "empereur Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri V’s actions as Holy Roman Emperor, but it does not state that he was physically present in the German lands at any time prior to 1756. It merely notes his imperial status and references events in France (e.g., exhuming his father). There is no mention of a visit, residence, or activity in Germany within the text. Therefore there is no evidence supporting Henri V’s presence in Germany before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Henri V’s political and religious activities, noting that he had “détrôné et exhumé son pére” with papal support. However, the text contains no explicit statement or contextual cue indicating that Henri V was physically present in Germany during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). The only reference to a location is the mention of “Allemagne,” but it appears as part of a broader discussion about territories and rights, not as evidence of Henri’s presence there. Since no direct evidence of his presence in Germany within the required timeframe exists, we cannot confirm that he was physically present at that location during the specified period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_pascal", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pascal II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Ainsi Pascal II vint en France, et implora le secours du roi Philippe : ses successeurs en usèrent souvent de même.” The verb “vint” (came) indicates a physical visit to France by Pope Pascal II. Since the document is dated 1756 and the visit occurred before that date, it confirms Pascal II’s presence in France prior to publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Ainsi Pascal II vint en France, et implora le secours du roi Philippe : ses successeurs en usèrent souvent de même.” This indicates that Pascal II visited France at some point in his reign. However, the text provides no explicit date or temporal marker linking this visit to the period surrounding the document’s publication (the 30‑day window ending on 1756). Without a specific date within that window, we cannot confirm that Pascal II was physically present in France during the required timeframe. Therefore there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the condition.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V", "Henri IV", "empereur Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the heading “CHAPITRE 37 De l’ empereur Henri V et de Rome, jusqu’à Fréderic I.” This indicates that Henri V was physically present in Rome at some point before the document’s publication date (1756), as he is described as having received a papal bull while “maître” there. The text does not provide any evidence of Henri IV being in Rome, but the presence of Henri V satisfies the condition that one of the named persons was physically present at Rome prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri V’s actions and a papal bull, but it does not contain an explicit statement that he was physically present in Rome during the period leading up to 1756. No date or temporal marker is provided that places him in Rome within the required 30‑day window before the document’s publication. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at the specified location and time.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q133063_grégoire", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q133063", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Grégoire VII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q3992_liége", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q3992", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Liége", "cathédrale de Liége" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “il mourut à Liége plus misérable encor que Grégoire VII.” This indicates that the subject died in Liège, and it compares his death to that of Gregory VII. The phrase “Il s’ écrit en mourant” further implies that Gregory VII was physically present in Liège when he wrote his final letter, i.e., while dying there. Since the document’s publication date is 1756, both events occurred well before that date. Therefore there is explicit textual evidence that Gregory VII was present at the cathedral of Liège (the location mentioned) prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions that the subject “Il” died at Liège and compares his death to that of Grégoire VII, but it does not state that Grégoire VII himself was present in Liège or provide any date for such an event. The text is dated 1756, yet there is no explicit mention of a timeframe within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (i.e., roughly August–September 1756). Without a direct statement that Grégoire VII was in Liège during that period, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the requirement for a TRUE classification.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q133063_grégoire", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q133063", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Grégoire VII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that the deceased “mourut à Liége plus misérable encor que Grégoire VII”. This indicates that Grégoire VII was alive in Europe at some point before his death, i.e., he had been physically present on the continent. Since the document’s publication date is 1756 and Grégoire VII died in 1084, there is clear evidence of his presence in Europe well before 1756. Therefore we can conclude that the person was indeed at the specified location prior to the document’s publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “encor que Grégoire VII” as a comparative remark, indicating that the subject is less misfortunate than Gregory VII, but it does not state that Gregory VII was physically present in Europe at any specific time. No date or temporal reference near 1756 appears in the text, and there is no explicit statement that he was in Europe within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between 1755‑12 May 1756). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_frederic", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Fréderic I" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Emperor Henri V and the papal relationship, ending with “jusqu’ à Fréderic I.” It does not state that Frédéric I himself was physically present in Rome or that he visited the city before 1756; it merely places him chronologically after Henri V. No mention of a trip, residence, or any event linking him to Rome appears in the text. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Henri V, papal bulls, and related events concerning Rome, but it contains no reference to Frédéric I being present at Rome or any event involving him in that location. The only mention of a person associated with Rome is “Henri V” (the emperor), not Frédéric I. Since there is no explicit statement that Frédéric I was physically present in Rome within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_pascal", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pascal II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text discusses Pascal II’s political activities in France (“Pascal II vint en France…”) and does not explicitly state that he was physically present in Rome at any particular time. However, the passage refers to him as a papal figure (e.g., “le même Henri V qui avait détrôné et exhumé son pére, une bulle du pape à la main”), implying his role as Pope. Historically, Pascal II was Pope from 923 to 945, and during that papacy he resided in Rome. Since the document’s publication date is 1756, this period lies well before it. Therefore there is evidence—historical fact derived from the text’s reference to his papal role—that Pascal II was physically present in Rome at some point prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Pascal II’s visit to France (“Pascal II vint en France”) and references earlier events concerning Emperor Henri V, but it contains no explicit statement that Pascal II was in Rome during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). There is no mention of a specific date or event linking him to Rome within that period. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at the specified location and time.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_pascal", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pascal II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the activities and relationships of various French monarchs and popes, but it does not state or imply that Pascal II ever visited or resided in Germany. The only reference to Pascal II is “Pascal II vint en France,” indicating his presence in France, not in Germany. Since there is no mention of him being in Germany before the document’s publication date (1756), we cannot infer any evidence that he was physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical figures and events but does not state that Pascal II was physically present in Allemagne within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). It only notes that “Pascal II vint en France,” which is a separate location. No mention of Germany, nor any dates close to 1756, appears in the text. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Pascal II was present at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V", "Henri IV", "empereur Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q6829_spire", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q6829", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Spire" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri IV’s son who buried his father’s remains in a cave at Spire, but it does not state that the Holy Roman Emperor Henri V was present or even visited Spire. The only reference to Henri V is in a separate chapter about his relationship with Rome and papal bulls; there is no mention of him being at Spire before 1756. Therefore there is no textual evidence linking Henri V’s presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri V’s actions regarding his father’s body but does not state that he was physically present at the cave in Spire within a month before 1756. The only mention of Spire is “une cave à Spire” where the body was placed after being taken from Liège, and there is no explicit statement that Henri V himself was there during that timeframe. Since the text lacks any date or direct evidence of his presence at Spire in the required window, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_frederic", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Fréderic I" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q6829_spire", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q6829", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Spire" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri IV’s actions concerning a body placed in a cave at Spire, but it contains no reference to Frédéric I being present there or any other mention of him at that location. The text is focused on the papacy, imperial politics, and earlier historical figures; there is no indication that Frédéric I visited or was physically present at Spire before 1756. Therefore, based on the provided document, we cannot confirm his presence at that site.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri IV’s son and a cave in Spire, but contains no reference to Frédéric I being there or any event involving him near that location. The only date mentioned is the publication year (1756), yet the text does not provide any temporal marker within the 30‑day window preceding it. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that Frédéric I was present at Spire during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roi Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the papacy and mentions that Pascal II “vint en France, et implora le secours du roi Philippe,” indicating that King Philippe was physically present in France at that time. The text contains no reference to him traveling or being in Germany before 1756; it only notes his presence in France during a papal visit. Since there is no evidence of his presence in the specified location (Germany) prior to the document’s publication date, we conclude that the claim is unsupported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “roi Philippe” only in the sentence: “Pascal II vint en France, et implora le secours du roi Philippe : ses successeurs en usèrent souvent de même.” This indicates that Philip was in France at some unspecified time, not in Germany. The document does not mention any event or location involving both “roi Philippe” and “Allemagne,” nor does it provide a date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Philip was physically present in Germany during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_pepin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pepin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “les prétendues donations de Pepin et de Charlemagne,” indicating that Pepin possessed lands and rights within the Frankish realm, which corresponds to modern France. As a Frankish king, Pepin’s authority was exercised in France centuries before 1756; his presence there is historically documented. The text does not explicitly state a physical visit, but it confirms his control over French territories, implying he had been physically present at the location (France) at some point prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses medieval events and mentions “donations of Pepin” but does not state that Pepin himself was physically present in France at any specific date. There is no explicit reference to a time period or an event involving Pepin within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). Consequently, there is no evidence that Pepin was present in France during that interval.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q3044_charlemagne", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q3044", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charlemagne" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the political and ecclesiastical relations between the French monarchy and the papacy, referencing Emperor Henri V and his father’s actions concerning Charlemagne’s alleged donations. It mentions “les donations de Pepin et de Charlemagne” as a source of rights, but it does not state that Charlemagne himself was physically present in France at any time before 1756. No sentence or clause indicates Charlemagne’s presence in the country; the text only references his legacy and legal claims. Therefore there is no direct evidence in the document that Charlemagne visited or resided in France prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses contemporary events and figures (e.g., Henri V, the papacy) but contains no explicit statement that Charlemagne was in France or that he performed any action there within a month preceding the publication date of 1756. Moreover, Charlemagne lived from 768 to 814 AD—centuries before 1756—so his physical presence in France during the relevant time window is historically impossible. Therefore there is no evidence that he was present at the specified location within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V", "Henri IV", "empereur Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q3992_liége", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q3992", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Liége", "cathédrale de Liége" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Henri V qui avait détrôné et exhumé son pére, une bulle du pape à la main, soûtint les mêmes droits de Henri IV contre l’ église, dès qu’ il fut maître.” The act of exhuming his father’s body in the cathedral of Liège requires physical presence at that site. Since this event occurred while he was “maître” (i.e., before 1756), it confirms that Henri V was physically present in Liège and within its cathedral at some point prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Il mourut à Liége” and identifies the subject as Henri V (the emperor). However, it provides no explicit date or temporal marker for this event. The document’s publication date is 1756, but without a specific date within the text indicating that Henri V was present in Liége during the 30‑day window preceding that date, we cannot confirm his presence in that timeframe. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the required criteria for a TRUE classification.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv-NIL_frederic", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Fréderic I" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk204.tsv_Q3992_liége", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q3992", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Liége", "cathédrale de Liége" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri IV’s son, who performed an act in the cathedral of Liège, but it does not mention Frédéric I being there. The only reference to Frédéric I is a separate historical note about Emperor Henry V and papal bulls, which contains no indication that he visited or was present at the cathedral. Since the text provides no evidence of Frédéric I’s physical presence in Liège before 1756, we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Henri V and the papacy but contains no explicit statement that Frédéric I was in Liége or at its cathedral during the 30‑day window before the publication date (1756). The only reference to “Fréderic I” is a chapter heading, which does not indicate physical presence. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at the specified location within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk110", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Enfin Rolon ou Raoul, le plus illustre de ces brigands du nord, après avoir été chassé du Dannemarck, ayant rassemblé en Scandinavie tous ceux qui voulurent s' attacher à sa fortune, tenta de nouvelles avantures, et fonda l' espérance de sa grandeur sur la faiblesse de l' Europe. Il aborda l' Angleterre, où ses compatriotes étaient déja établis ; mais après deux victoires inutiles, il tourna du côté de la France, que d' autres normands savaient ruiner, mais qu' ils ne savaient pas asservir. Rolon fut le seul de ces barbares qui cessa d' en mériter le nom, en cherchant un établissement fixe. Maître de Rouen sans peine, au lieu de la détruire, il en fit relever les murailles et les tours. Rouen devint sa place d' armes ; de là il volait tantôt en Angleterre, tantôt en France, faisant la guerre avec politique, comme avec fureur. La France était expirante sous le régne de Charles Le Simple, roi de nom, et dont la monarchie était encor plus démembrée par les ducs, par les comtes et par les barons ses sujets, que par les normands. Charles Le Gros n' avait donné que de l' or aux barbares : Charles Le Simple offrit à Rolon sa fille et des provinces. Raoul demanda d' abord la Normandie : et on fut trop heureux de la lui céder. Il demanda ensuite la Bretagne ; on disputa ; mais il fallut la céder encor avec des clauses que le plus fort explique toûjours à son avantage. Ainsi la Bretagne, qui était tout - à - l' heure un royaume, devint un fief de la Neustrie ; et la Neustrie, qu' on s' accoutuma bientôt à nommer Normandie du nom de ses usurpateurs, fut un état séparé, dont les ducs rendaient un vain hommage à la couronne de France. L' archevêque de Rouen sut persuader à Rolon de se faire chrêtien. Ce prince embrassa volontiers une religion qui affermissait sa puissance. Les véritables conquérans sont ceux qui savent faire des loix. Leur puissance est stable ; les autres sont des torrens qui passent. Rolon paisible fut le seul législateur de son tems dans le continent chrêtien. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q187519_charles_le_simple", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q187519", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles Le Simple", "Charles Le Gros" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q327_bretagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q327", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bretagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage concerns Rolon’s activities in Normandy and Brittany, describing his conquests and the political situation under Charles Le Simple. It notes that “Charles Le Simple n’ avait donné que de l’or aux barbares” and that he offered Rolon a daughter and provinces, but it provides no indication that Charles himself was physically present in Brittany or that he visited there. Moreover, the text does not mention Charles Le Gros at all; it only refers to him as having given gold to the barbarians. Since the document contains no evidence of either king’s presence in Brittany before 1756, we cannot confirm their physical presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Rolon’s activities and references the reigns of Charles Le Simple and Charles Le Gros, but it contains no explicit statement that either king was physically present in Bretagne during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only mention of Charles Le Simple is a comment on his rule (“La France était expirante sous le régne de Charles Le Simple”), and the reference to Charles Le Gros concerns his financial actions, not any location. Since there is no evidence that either king was in Bretagne within the required timeframe, we cannot confirm their presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_raoul", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Raoul" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q15878_normandie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q15878", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Normandie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Maître de Rouen sans peine, au lieu de la détruire, il en fit relever les murailles et les tours.” This indicates that Raoul (Rolon) held the title of master of Rouen, a city in Normandy, and therefore was physically present there. The text also notes his earlier activities in Normandy (“Il aborda l’ Angleterre … mais après deux victoires inutiles, il tourna du côté de la France”) and later his demand for Brittany, implying continued presence in the region. Since these events occurred well before 1756 (the publication date of the document), there is clear evidence that Raoul was indeed present in Normandy prior to that date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is a medieval narrative about Rolon/Raoul, describing his activities in Normandy (e.g., “Maître de Rouen”, “Rouen devint sa place d’armes”). However, the text contains no explicit date or temporal marker that places Raoul physically in Normandy within 30 days before the publication year 1756. The narrative is set centuries earlier and lacks any contemporary reference to Raoul’s presence at that time. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence in Normandy during the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q187519_charles_le_simple", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q187519", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles Le Simple", "Charles Le Gros" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “La France était expirante sous le régne de Charles Le Simple, roi de nom…” This indicates that Charles Le Simple was the king of France during his reign. Being a monarch implies he resided in and governed the kingdom, so he must have been physically present in France at some point before 1756 (the publication date). The text does not mention any absence or exile; it simply notes the end of his reign. Therefore there is explicit evidence that Charles Le Simple was in France prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Rolon’s activities in France and the political context of the era, but it does not contain any explicit statement that Charles Le Simple or Charles Le Gros were physically present in France within 30 days before the document’s publication date (1756). The only references to these individuals are historical titles (“roi de nom”) and their reigns, which do not indicate a presence at a specific location or time. Since no such evidence exists, we cannot confirm that either king was present in France during the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_rolon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Rolon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q327_bretagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q327", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bretagne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Il demanda ensuite la Bretagne ; on disputa ; mais il fallut la céder encor avec des clauses…”. The verb *demanda* (“he demanded”) indicates Rolon was physically present in Brittany to make the demand, as a claim cannot be made from elsewhere. This occurrence is explicitly before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is direct evidence that Rolon was in Bretagne prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Rolon’s actions concerning Brittany (“Il demanda ensuite la Bretagne ; on disputa …”) but it contains no explicit date or temporal marker indicating his physical presence in Brittany within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). The text is a historical narrative without specific dates, and there is no mention of Rolon being in Brittany at any time close to 1756. Therefore we cannot confirm that he was physically present in Brittany during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_rolon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Rolon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q15878_normandie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q15878", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Normandie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that Rolon was “Maître de Rouen” and that “Rouen devint sa place d’armes.” This indicates he held a position in Rouen, which is located within the region of Normandy. The text does not provide any dates, but the presence of him as a local lord implies physical presence there at some point before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore we can conclude that Rolon was indeed present in Normandy prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Rolon’s activities and titles (e.g., “Maître de Rouen”) but provides no explicit temporal reference that places him in Normandy within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1756. The text is medieval in style, lacking any dates or events close to 1756, so there is no evidence that Rolon was physically present at Rouen (Normandie) during that specific period. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_raoul", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Raoul" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q35_dannemarck", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q35", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Dannemarck" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Rolon ou Raoul … après avoir été chassé du Dannemarck,” which means he was physically present at the place of Dannemarck before being expelled. This indicates his presence there prior to the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore, the evidence supports the claim that Raoul was indeed in Dannemarck.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Rolon ou Raoul … après avoir été chassé du Dannemarck,” indicating that he was present at Dannemarck prior to being expelled. However, the text contains no explicit date or temporal marker associated with this event, nor any indication that it occurred within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). Without a specific date or contextual cue confirming his presence in that narrow timeframe, we cannot satisfy the requirement for proof of presence. Therefore the evidence is insufficient to classify the claim as TRUE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q187519_charles_le_simple", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q187519", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles Le Simple", "Charles Le Gros" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q21_angleterre", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q21", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Angleterre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Rolon’s activities and the political situation in France under Charles Le Simple, but it contains no reference to either Charles Le Simple or Charles Le Gros being present in England. The only mention of England is that Rolon “aborda l’ Angleterre,” which refers to Rolon’s travel there, not to the kings. Therefore there is no evidence that either king was physically in England before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Rolon/ Raoul’s activities and does not contain any statement indicating that Charles Le Simple or Charles Le Gros were physically present in England, nor does it provide a date linking such an event to the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). Since there is no explicit evidence of their presence at the specified location within the required timeframe, we conclude that neither king was present.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_rolon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Rolon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q35_dannemarck", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q35", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Dannemarck" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Rolon “après avoir été chassé du Dannemarck” (after having been chased out of Dannemarck). The phrase indicates that Rolon had previously been physically present at the place called Dannemarck, before being driven away. Since the document’s publication date is 1756 and the text refers to an earlier event, this confirms Rolon’s presence at Dannemarck prior to that date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that Rolon “après avoir été chassé du Dannemarck” (after being chased out of Dannemarck). This indicates he had been in the place before the chase, but it does not provide a specific date or indicate that his presence at Dannemarck falls within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). No explicit mention of Rolon being physically present there during that period appears in the text. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at Dannemarck within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_rolon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Rolon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that Rolon “aborda l’ Angleterre, où ses compatriotes étaient déjà établis ; mais après deux victoires inutiles, il tourna du côté de la France.” This indicates he moved from England to France. Moreover, it later refers to him as “Maître de Rouen,” a title denoting authority over the city of Rouen in France. Both references confirm Rolon’s physical presence in France before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is direct evidence that Rolon was indeed present in France prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage is a medieval narrative about Rolon’s activities in the early Middle Ages and contains no explicit date or temporal marker that would place him in France within 30 days before the document’s publication (i.e., between July 24 and August 24, 1756). It merely states that Rolon “aborda la Normandie” and later “volait tantôt en Angleterre, tantôt en France,” but these are actions without dates. Since there is no evidence of Rolon’s presence in France during the required window, we cannot confirm his physical presence at the specified location within the timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_rolon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Rolon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Rolon’s activities in the medieval period: “Il aborda l’ Angleterre, où ses compatriotes étaient déjà établis; mais après deux victoires inutiles, il tourna du côté de la France…”. England is a part of Europe, so Rolon was physically present there. The text also notes his subsequent move to France, which is likewise within the European continent. Since these events occurred long before the document’s publication date (1756), they provide explicit evidence that Rolon was indeed in Europe at some point prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Rolon’s travels to England and France, but it provides no dates or temporal markers that place him in those locations within the 30‑day window ending on 1756. The narrative is written in a medieval style and refers only to his earlier actions; there is no explicit statement that he was physically present in Europe during the period just before the document’s publication date. Consequently, we cannot confirm Rolon’s presence at the specified location within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_raoul", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Raoul" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q327_bretagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q327", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bretagne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Il demanda ensuite la Bretagne ; on disputa ; mais il fallut la céder encor avec des clauses que le plus fort explique à son avantage.” The verb *demanda* (“he demanded”) implies that Raoul was physically present in the region to make such a demand, as only someone who could negotiate with the local authorities would be there. Since this action occurred before the document’s publication date (1756), it provides evidence of his presence in Brittany prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Il demanda ensuite la Bretagne ; on disputa ; mais il fallut la céder encor avec des clauses…” This indicates that the person (Rolon/Raoul) was making a claim or request concerning Brittany, but it does not provide any explicit evidence of his physical presence in Brittany. No date is given for this event, and there are no references to him being in Brittany within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore, the text does not satisfy the requirement that Raoul was physically present in Bretagne during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q187519_charles_le_simple", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q187519", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles Le Simple", "Charles Le Gros" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q15878_normandie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q15878", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Normandie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies “Charles Le Simple, roi de nom” as the reigning king of France. As a sovereign ruler, he would have been physically present within his kingdom’s territories at various times before 1756. Normandy is part of France, so the existence of Charles Le Simple as king provides implicit evidence that he was in Normandy during his reign. No statement contradicts this presence; thus there is direct textual support for his physical presence in the region prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Rolon’s activities in Normandy and references the reigns of Charles Le Simple and Charles Le Gros, but it contains no explicit statement that either king was physically present in Normandy during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The text only notes their reigns or actions elsewhere; there is no mention of them being in Normandy at any specific time. Therefore, there is no evidence to satisfy the requirement for presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_rolon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Rolon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q30974_rouen", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q30974", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rouen" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Rolon was “Maître de Rouen” and that he rebuilt its walls and towers, indicating his physical presence in the city to perform those tasks. The text also notes that Rouen became his “place of arms,” further confirming his residence there. Since these actions occurred before the document’s publication date (1756), Rolon was indeed present in Rouen prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Rolon as “Maître de Rouen sans peine,” indicating he held the title of master (or lord) in Rouen at some point. However, the text contains no explicit date or temporal marker that places this presence within 30 days before the document’s publication date of 1756. Without a specific date or a clear time reference tied to Rolon’s activity in Rouen during that window, we cannot confirm his physical presence there within the required period. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the strict criteria for presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_raoul", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Raoul" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q21195_scandinavie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q21195", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Scandinavie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Rolon (also called Raoul) “after having been driven out of Dannemarck, having gathered in Scandinavie all those who wanted to attach themselves to his fortune.” This indicates that he was physically present in the region of Scandinavie at some point before the document’s publication date (1756). The wording explicitly places him there as part of a gathering activity. Therefore there is direct textual evidence supporting his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Rolon ou Raoul … having gathered in Scandinavie all those who wished to attach themselves to his fortune,” indicating that he was present there at some point. However, the text provides no explicit date or temporal marker that places this activity within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between 16 September 1755 and 16 September 1756). The narrative is a historical account without specific dates, so we cannot confirm that Raoul was physically present in Scandinavie during that narrow timeframe. Therefore there is no evidence satisfying the required criteria.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q187519_charles_le_simple", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q187519", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles Le Simple", "Charles Le Gros" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q30974_rouen", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q30974", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rouen" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the reigns and political situation under the kings Charles Le Simple and Charles Le Gros, but it does not contain any statement indicating that either king was physically present in Rouen at any time before 1756. The text only notes that “La France était expirante sous le régne de Charles Le Simple” (the French kingdom was ending under his reign) and mentions the archbishop of Rouen persuading Rolon to become a Christian, but it does not link the kings’ presence to Rouen. Since there is no explicit or implicit evidence of their physical presence in that city before the document’s publication date, we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Rolon’s activities and mentions “Charles Le Simple” only as a historical figure, without indicating his presence anywhere, let alone in Rouen. There is no sentence or clause that places either Charles Le Simple or Charles Le Gros in Rouen during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Consequently, there is no textual evidence of their physical presence at the specified location within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv-NIL_raoul", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Raoul" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk110.tsv_Q106577_neustrie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q106577", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Neustrie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Raoul’s political actions: he demanded and received Normandy, then sought Brittany which was later made a fief of the Neustrie. It does not state that Raoul himself visited or resided in the Neustrie; it only notes that the region became part of his domain. Since there is no explicit mention of Raoul being physically present at Neustria before 1756, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "Prediction(\n reasoning=None,\n classification=None\n)", "CORRECT": false } ] }, { "document_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Peiresc lettres chunk230", "time_period": "1637", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1637", "language": "fr", "text": " Que je n' ay pas, mais de la derniere de Paris dans l' un des derniers volumes de la bibliotheque des peres, où il est inseré avec tous les autres grecs et latins du mesme subject des liturgies. Quant aulx inscriptions du Grutterus, il y a veritablement un recueil d' inscriptions crestiennes parmy lesquelles possible y trouveriez vous quelque chose de vostre faict, mais il fauldroit que vous en fissiez le choix vous mesmes, car tel mot vous fournira de la matiere de discourir qui me pourroit eschapper à moy. Je le vous envoyeray trez volontiers, si vous me l' ordonnez, mais parceque, si je ne me trompe, Monsieur Vias en a un exemplaire qu' il vous baillera volontiers, j' ay creu que possible seriez vous bien ayse de le prendre là, attendu que vous aurez bientost parcouru ce peu de feuilletz qui y sont sur la fin des inscriptions crestiennes. Vous m' avez bien obligé de me faire part de la lettre de Mr Rigault, lequel je congnois de fort longue main, comme aussy Mr De Saulmaise. Je vouldroys bien que les notes de l' un et de l' aultre sur Pline et Tertullien fussent imprimées et serois bien marry que les anglois nous ostassent Mr Saulmaise qui est un grand thresor et seroit beaucoup plus considerable s' il eust peu esviter le coup de son mariage qui luy occasionne tant de troubles et de divertissement en ses estudes et observations singulieres, dont le public se seroit tant prevalu. Mais je me suis infiniment resjouy d' entendre que vous ayez tant advancé vostre traicté des religieux dont je ne puis assez louer l' entreprise et les belles singularitez que vous y aurez remarquées. Nous attendrons avec grande impatience tout ce qu' il vous plaira nous en communiquer et que vous deignez nous honorer de voz commandementz comme celuy qui est et sera à jamais, monsieur, vostre, etc. D' Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627. à monsieur, monsieur l' evesque d' Orleans, conseiller du roy en ses conseils d' estat, à Marseille. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_monsieur_l_evesque_d_orleans", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "monsieur l' evesque d' Orleans" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627” and is addressed to “monsieur l' evesque d' Orleans, conseiller du roy en ses conseils d' état, à Marseille.” This indicates that the writer is in Aix while the recipient is located in Marseille. The text does not contain any statement or implication that Monsieur l’ Evesque himself was physically present in Aix at any time before 1637; it only places him in Marseille. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence in Aix prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document’s header reads “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating that the letter was written from Aix on 15 February 1627 (the publication date). The only reference to Monsieur l’Evesque d’Orleans is in the salutation: “à monsieur, monsieur l’ evesque d’ Orleans, conseiller du roy en ses conseils d’État, à Marseille.” This sentence merely states that the writer is addressing him; it does not describe his physical presence at Aix. No other part of the text mentions him being in Aix or any activity there within the 30‑day window (16 January – 15 February 1627). Therefore, there is no explicit evidence that Monsieur l’Evesque d’Orleans was present at Aix during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_monsieur_l_evesque_d_orleans", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "monsieur l' evesque d' Orleans" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q23482_marseille", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q23482", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Marseille" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a letter dated “X Febvrier 1627” from Aix, addressed to “monsieur l’ evesque d’ Orleans, conseiller du roy en ses conseils d’ état, à Marseille.” The phrase “à Marseille” indicates that the recipient was physically present in Marseille at the time of writing. Since 1627 is earlier than the document’s publication date (1637), this provides direct evidence that Monsieur l’ evesque d’ Orleans was indeed in Marseille before 1637.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document’s date line reads “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating a publication date in February 1627. The text addresses “monsieur l’ evesque d’Orleans” and notes that the letter is sent from Marseille (“à Monsieur … à Marseille”). However, it does not contain any explicit statement that the person was physically present in Marseille within the 30‑day window preceding February 1627 (i.e., between January 17 and February 16). The mention of his residence or address is merely a mailing reference and does not confirm his presence at the location during the required period. Therefore, there is no direct evidence that he was in Marseille within the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_grutterus", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Grutterus" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a library volume from “the last of Paris” and mentions that an inscription by Grutterus is included among other Greek and Latin texts. It contains no statement indicating that Grutterus himself was physically present in Paris at any time before the document’s publication date (1637). The only reference to Grutterus is his name on an inscription, not a claim of his presence or activity in Paris. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the assertion that he was in Paris prior to 1637.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is a letter dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating it was written in February 1627. The required window for presence is the 30 days preceding the publication date of 1637 (i.e., March 8 – April 8 1637). The text contains no mention of Grutterus being in Paris during that period; it only references his inscriptions in a library. Therefore there is no evidence that Grutterus was physically present in Paris within the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_vias", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Monsieur Vias" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “la dernière de Paris” as the location of a volume in a library, and mentions Monsieur Vias having an exemplar of it. It does not state that Monsieur Vias himself was physically present in Paris; only that he possessed a copy there. No other part of the text indicates his presence at the city before 1637. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that Monsieur Vias was in Paris prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating it was written in February 1627. The required window for presence is the 30‑day period ending on the publication date (1637), i.e., roughly from early January to early February 1637. Since the document itself predates that window by more than a decade and contains no mention of Monsieur Vias being in Paris during that time, there is no evidence supporting his presence at the specified location within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_saulmaise", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr Saulmaise", "Mr De Saulmaise" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating that the writer was physically in Aix on that date. The only mention of Mr Saulmaise (or Mr De Saulmaise) appears in a sentence about his marriage and scholarly work; it does not state that he was present at Aix or that he visited there. No other part of the text provides any indication of his presence in Aix before 1637. Therefore, there is no evidence in the document that Mr Saulmaise (or Mr De Saulmaise) was physically present at Aix prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “X Febvrier 1627” (i.e., 15 February 1627). The only reference to the location “Aix” in that text is the address line “D' Aix,” which indicates where the letter was sent from, not that any person was physically present there. \nThe person names mentioned are “Mr Saulmaise” and “Mr De Saulmaise.” The text contains no statement that either of them was in Aix during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1637). Therefore, there is no explicit evidence of their presence at Aix within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q82778_pline", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q82778", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pline" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a dated letter (2 Feb 1627) written to an official from Marseille. It references “Pline” only as the subject of scholarly notes (“notes on Pline and Tertullien”), indicating that the writer is referring to the ancient Roman historian, not to any contemporary person named Pline. There is no mention of a person named Pline traveling to or residing in Aix, nor any indication that he was physically present there at any time before 1637. Consequently, the text provides no evidence that Pline was in Aix prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating the writer’s location at that time. However, there is no sentence or clause that explicitly states that Pline was physically present in Aix during that period. The only reference to “Pline” appears earlier in the text concerning printed notes on his works, not as evidence of his presence at the location. Since the task requires explicit mention of the person’s presence at the specified location within roughly 30 days before the publication date (i.e., between 1627‑01‑16 and 1627‑02‑15), this criterion is not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q174929_tertullien", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q174929", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Tertullien" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a letter dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627” addressed to an official in Marseille. It references Tertullien (Mr Saulmaise) only as a scholar whose works are being discussed; there is no statement that Tertullien himself was physically present in Aix at any time before the letter’s publication date. The text merely indicates the author’s location, not Tertullien’s presence. Therefore there is no evidence of Tertullien being in Aix prior to 1637.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627.” This places the event in February 1627, which is more than nine years before the publication date of 1637. The text mentions Tertullien only in a reference to notes on Pline and Tertullien; it does not state that Tertullien was physically present at Aix during any timeframe near 1637. Since there is no explicit evidence that Tertullien was in Aix within the 30‑day window preceding 1637, the claim cannot be confirmed.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_saulmaise", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr Saulmaise", "Mr De Saulmaise" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q23482_marseille", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q23482", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Marseille" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter is dated “X Febvrier 1627” and is addressed to “monsieur l’ evesque d’Orleans, conseiller du roy en ses conseils d’état, à Marseille.” This indicates that the recipient (the evesque) was physically located in Marseille at the time of writing. However, the text contains no mention of Mr Saulmaise or Mr De Saulmaise being present in Marseille; it only references them as scholars whose works are discussed. The only reference to Marseille is tied to the addressee’s location, not to the person in question. Therefore there is no evidence that either Mr Saulmaise or Mr De Saulmaise was physically present at Marseille before the document’s publication date (1637).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating it was written on 16 February 1627. The only reference to Marseille in the text is a salutation addressed to “monsieur l’ evesque d’Orleans, conseiller du roy en ses conseils d’état, à Marseille.” This indicates that the writer is writing to someone who resides or works at Marseille, but it does not state that Mr Saulmaise (or Mr De Saulmaise) was physically present there. No sentence in the passage mentions Mr Saulmaise being in Marseille, nor any date or event linking him to that location within the 30‑day window preceding the publication. Therefore there is no explicit evidence of his presence at Marseille during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_rigault", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr Rigault" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter is dated 16 February 1627 and originates from Aix. It mentions a “lettre de Mr Rigault” that the writer has received, but it does not state where Mr Rigault was or that he was physically present in Paris. The only location referenced in the text is Aix itself; there is no mention of Mr Rigault being in Paris before 1637. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Mr Rigault was at Paris prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “ce X Febvrier 1627” (February 15, 1627). The only reference to Mr Rigault is the mention of a letter he wrote: “Je vous ai bien obligé de me faire part de la lettre de Mr Rigault…”. This indicates that a letter exists, but it does not state that Mr Rigault himself was physically present in Paris. No other sentence mentions his presence, nor any date or location tied to him within the 30‑day window (1627‑01‑16 to 1627‑02‑15). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Mr Rigault was in Paris during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q82778_pline", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q82778", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pline" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q23482_marseille", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q23482", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Marseille" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a letter dated 16 February 1627 written from D’Aix to an official in Marseille. It contains references to the works of Pline (e.g., “notes on Pline and Tertullian”), but it does not state that Pline himself was physically present in Marseille or that he visited there. The only mention of Marseille is as the location of the recipient, not of any person named Pline. Therefore there is no evidence in the text indicating that Pline was at Marseille before the publication date (1637).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a date “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” which places it far earlier than the publication year (1637). The only reference to the person “Pline” is in the phrase “Je vouldroys bien que les notes de l’un et de l’autre sur Pline…”, but this occurs without any mention of Marseille or a date within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between early March 1637 and late March 1637). Since there is no explicit statement that Pline was present in Marseille during that period, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_rigault", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr Rigault" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a letter dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627” addressed to “monsieur l’ evesque d’Orleans… à Marseille.” It contains references to Mr. Rigault (e.g., “la lettre de Mr Rigault”), but it does not state that Mr. Rigault himself was physically present in Aix at any time before the publication date of 1637. The only mention of Aix is as the place of dispatch, not as a location where Mr. Rigault was located. Therefore there is no evidence in the text indicating his presence in Aix prior to 1637.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating that it was written in Aix on 16 February 1627. The only mention of Mr Rigault in the text is a reference to his letter (“la lettre de Mr Rigault”), with no indication that he himself was physically present at Aix or even within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (which would be around 1637). Since there is no explicit statement of Mr Rigault’s presence in Aix during the required timeframe, the criteria for a TRUE classification are not met. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q174929_tertullien", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q174929", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Tertullien" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q23482_marseille", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q23482", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Marseille" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter is dated February 16, 1627 and is addressed to an official in Marseille, but it contains no mention of Tertullian being present there or any indication that he visited the city before 1637. The only reference to “Tertullien” appears as a scholarly citation (“notes on Pline et Tertullien”), which merely indicates his works were referenced, not his physical presence in Marseille. Since no evidence of Tertullian’s presence is provided in the text, we conclude that there is no support for him being physically present at the specified location before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” indicating its publication in early February 1627. The only reference to Tertullien appears in a sentence about the text’s content (“les notes de l’un et de l’autre sur Pline et Tertullien”), which does not indicate any physical presence of Tertullien anywhere, let alone in Marseille. The address at the end mentions “à Marseille,” but it refers to an addressee (the bishop of Orléans) and contains no mention of Tertullien being there. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that Tertullien was physically present in Marseille within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q174929_tertullien", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q174929", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Tertullien" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter dated 16 February 1627 discusses various scholars and manuscripts, mentioning “Pline et Tertullien” among the works that are being examined. However, the text does not state that Tertullian himself was physically present in Paris; it only references his writings or the presence of his texts. The location “Paris” appears only as a reference to the library’s location and to the writer’s address (“D’ Aix”), but there is no explicit claim that Tertullian visited or resided there before 1637. Consequently, there is no direct evidence in the document supporting the presence of Tertullian at Paris prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text is dated “X Febvrier 1627” and discusses Tertullien only in the context of a literary work (“Pline et Tertullien”). It contains no statement that Tertullien himself was physically present in Paris, nor does it provide any date or location linking him to Paris within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between 15 Jan 1637 and 15 Feb 1637). Since there is no explicit evidence of Tertullien’s presence in Paris during that period, we cannot confirm his physical presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_saulmaise", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr Saulmaise", "Mr De Saulmaise" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a dated letter written on 16 February 1627 from “D’ Aix” to an official in Marseille. It references Mr Rigault and Mr De Saulmaise, but it does not mention any visit or presence of these individuals in Paris. The only location associated with the person is the office in Marseille (or possibly a reference to his residence there). Since no part of the text indicates that Mr Saulmaise was physically present in Paris before 1637, we cannot support such an assertion.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains references to “Paris” (e.g., “de la derniate de Paris”) and mentions the person’s name (“Mr Saulmaise”), but it does not state that he was physically present in Paris. The only date mentioned is “ce X Febvrier 1627,” which is far earlier than the publication year 1637, and there is no indication of any visit or activity by Mr Saulmaise in Paris within the 30‑day window preceding that publication date (i.e., between 28 Jan 1637 and 27 Feb 1637). Therefore, there is no explicit evidence supporting his presence at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv-NIL_rigault", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr Rigault" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q23482_marseille", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q23482", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Marseille" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a letter dated “X Febvrier 1627” addressed to “monsieur l’ evesque d’Orleans, conseiller du roy en ses conseils d’état, à Marseille.” This indicates that the recipient was based in Marseille at the time of writing. The only reference to Mr Rigault is a mention of his letter (“Je vous ai bien obligé de me faire part de la lettre de Mr Rigault”), which does not specify any location or presence of him in Marseille. There is no statement indicating that Mr Rigault himself was physically present at Marseille before the publication date (1637). Therefore, there is no evidence supporting his presence in Marseille prior to 1637.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “D’ Aix, ce X Febvrier 1627,” so the relevant window for presence is from 15 January 1627 to 15 February 1627. \nMr Rigault appears only in the phrase “la lettre de Mr Rigault,” indicating that a letter was sent, but there is no statement that he himself was physically present in Marseille during that period. The only mention of Marseille in the text refers to the destination of the letter (“à Monsieur … à Marseille”), not to Mr Rigault’s presence there. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that Mr Rigault was in Marseille within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q82778_pline", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q82778", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pline" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk230.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a dated letter (February 1627) written by an unnamed author to “monsieur l’ evesque d’Orleans”. It references scholars such as Pline and Tertullien, but it does not state that Pline was physically present in Paris or any other location. The only mention of Paris is the phrase “de la derniere de Paris” referring to a library volume, not an indication of Pline’s presence there. Since no explicit evidence of Pline being in Paris before 1637 appears in the text, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the name “Pline” in the phrase “les notes de l’un et de l’autre sur Pline et Tertullien fussent imprimées,” but it does not state that Pline was physically present in Paris, nor does it provide a date linking his presence to any location. The only mention of Paris is “de la dernière de Paris” referring to a library, unrelated to the person’s presence. Since there is no explicit evidence that Pline was in Paris within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (Feb 15 1627), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk238", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Tous les péres tenaient des cierges allumés, quand le pape prononçait. Ils les éteignirent ensuite. Une partie signa l' arrêt, une autre partie sortit en gémissant. L' empereur était à Turin, qui n' apartenait point encor à la maison de Savoye. C' était un fief de l' empire, gouverné par le marquis de Suze. Il demanda une cassette. On la lui aporta. Il en tira la couronne impériale. \" ce pape et ce concile, dit -il, ne me l' ont pas ravie ; et avant qu' on m' en dépouille, il y aura bien du sang répandu. \" il ne manqua pas d' écrire d' abord à tous les princes d' Allemagne et de l' Europe par la plume de son fameux chancelier, Pierre Des Vignes, tant accusé d' avoir composé le livre des trois imposteurs. \" je ne suis pas le premier, disait -il dans ses lettres,... etc. \" cependant le pape, ayant déclaré l' empire vacant, écrivit à sept princes ou évêques : c' étaient les ducs de Baviére, de Saxe, d' Autriche et de Brabant, les archevêques de Saltzbourg, de Cologne et de Mayence. Voilà ce qui a fait croire que sept électeurs étaient alors solemnellement établis. Mais les autres princes de l' empire et les autres évêques prétendaient aussi avoir le même droit. Les empereurs et les papes tâchaient ainsi de se faire déposer mutuellement. Leur grande politique consistait à exciter des guerres civiles. On avait déjà élu roi des romains en Allemagne Conrad fils de Frédéric II mais il fallait, pour plaire au pape, choisir un autre empereur. Ce nouveau César ne fut choisi ni par les ducs de Saxe, ou de Brabant, ou de Baviére, ou d' Autriche, ni par aucun prince de l' empire. Les évêques de Strasbourg, de Würtsbourg, de Spire, de Metz, avec ceux de Mayence, de Cologne et de Trèves, créèrent cet empereur. Ils choisirent un landgrave de Thuringe, qu' on appella le roi des prêtres. Quel étrange empereur de Rome qu' un landgrave qui recevait la couronne seulement de quelques évêques de son pays ! Alors le pape fait renouveller la croisade contre Fréderic. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q2999_würtsbourg", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2999", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Würtsbourg" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of a new Roman Emperor and lists the bishops who participated in that process, including those from Würtsbourg. It states that “Ce nouveau César ne fut choisi … ni par aucun prince de l’empire,” indicating that the emperor was not selected by any prince at that time. However, there is no mention of César himself being present in Würtsbourg or any activity there. The text only notes the bishops’ involvement; it does not provide evidence that César visited or was physically present at Würtsbourg before 1756. Therefore, based on the available information, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions Würtsbourg in the context of bishops who helped elect an emperor, but it does not state that “César” was physically present there. No sentence links César to Würtsbourg or provides a date within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that César was at Würtsbourg during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_savoye", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "maison de Savoye" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q495_turin", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q495", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Turin" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “L’empereur était à Turin, qui n’ apartait point encore à la maison de Savoye.” This indicates that the emperor was physically in Turin while he had not yet reached the house of Savoy; it does not say that the house itself is located in Turin or that anyone from the house was present there. No other part of the text mentions the house being at Turin, nor any indication that the person (the house) visited Turin before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that the maison de Savoye was physically present in Turin prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states: “L’ empereur était à Turin, qui n’ apartaient point encor à la maison de Savoye.” This indicates that the emperor (and thus the person referred to as “maison de Savoye”) was in Turin but had not yet arrived at the house. There is no explicit statement that the person himself was physically present at Turin within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date. Therefore, there is no evidence of his presence at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q980_baviére", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q980", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Baviére" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of a new emperor (referred to as “le nouveau César”) and notes that this emperor was not chosen by the dukes of Bavaria, among others. It does not state that the emperor himself visited or was physically present in Bavaria; it only mentions his location in Turin (“L’ empereur était à Turin”). Since there is no evidence of the person “César” being at Baviére before 1756, we conclude that the claim is unsupported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of a new emperor (César) among various dukes, including “de Baviére”. It states that the new Caesar was **not** chosen by those dukes, implying he did not attend or be present at Bavièse. No sentence in the text indicates that César himself was physically present at Bavièse within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_conrad", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Conrad" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “On avait déjà élu roi des romains en Allemagne Conrad fils de Frédéric II…”. This indicates that Conrad held the title of king of the Romans while residing in the German lands (the region referred to as “Allemagne”). The fact that he was elected by the princes and bishops of Germany implies his physical presence there at some point prior to the document’s publication date. Therefore, there is explicit evidence that Conrad was physically present in Germany before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Conrad fils de Frédéric II” as the king of Romans who had been elected in Germany, but it provides no date or explicit statement that Conrad himself was physically present in Germany within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between 1756‑04‑01 and 1756‑04‑30). The text only records an election event, not a presence claim. Therefore there is no evidence that Conrad was in Germany during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_frederic", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Frédéric II", "Fréderic" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “On had already élu roi des romains en Allemagne Conrad fils de Frédéric II.” This indicates that the election of Conrad, son of Frédéric II, took place in Germany, but it does not state that Frédéric himself was physically present there. The text only references his lineage and the political outcome; there is no mention of Frédéric’s presence or any activity in Germany prior to 1756. Consequently, there is no direct evidence from the document that Frédéric II (or “Fréderic”) was in Germany before the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of a Roman king named “Conrad fils de Frédéric II” in Germany, but it does not state that Frédéric II himself was physically present there. No explicit mention of Frédéric’s presence in Germany or any date within 30 days before 1756 is provided. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location and timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_brabant", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Brabant" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses electors and the creation of an emperor, but it does not state that “César” himself was physically present in Brabant or that he visited there. It merely lists Brabant among the dukes who were electors; no mention of César’s presence at that location is found. Therefore there is no evidence that César was at Brabant before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the election of an emperor and references “les ducs de Baviére, de Saxe, d’ Autriche et de Brabant,” but it does not state that César was physically present at Brabant. The only mention of César is in a sentence about his selection (“Ce nouveau César ne fut choisi …”), which contains no date or location indicating presence within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that César was at Brabant during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q40_autriche", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q40", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Autriche" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of a new emperor and notes that “Ce nouveau César ne fut choisi ni par les ducs de Saxe, ou de Brabant, ou de Baviére, ou d’ Autriche, ni par aucun prince de l' empire.” This statement only indicates that no Austrian duke (or any prince from Austria) selected him; it does not provide any indication that the emperor himself was physically present in Austria. The text contains no mention of César traveling to or residing in Austria before 1756, nor any event linking his presence with the location. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that César was at Autriche prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of a new emperor and mentions “les ducs de Baviére, de Saxe, d' Autriche et de Brabant” as part of a group that chose an emperor, but it does not name any individual called “César” or state that he was physically present in Autriche. Moreover, there is no explicit date within the text that falls within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Because the required evidence of César’s presence at Autriche is absent, we cannot confirm his physical presence during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_conrad", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Conrad" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q22690_metz", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q22690", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Metz" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of Conrad as “roi des romains en Allemagne” and notes his status, but it does not mention him being present in Metz or any activity there. The only reference to Metz is a list of bishops from that city who helped elect an emperor; no indication that Conrad himself was physically at Metz before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the election of an emperor and lists several bishops from various cities, including Metz, but it does not state that Conrad (the king mentioned earlier) was present at Metz or that he visited there within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date. The only reference to Conrad is a separate clause about his election as “roi des romains” in Germany, with no connection to Metz. Therefore there is no explicit evidence of Conrad’s presence at Metz during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_pierre_des_vignes", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pierre Des Vignes" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the Pope’s correspondence to German princes and mentions Pierre Des Vignes as the papal chancellor who wrote these letters. It does not state that Des Vignes himself was in Germany or visited any of the mentioned locations; it only notes his role as a writer from Rome. Therefore there is no evidence that he was physically present in Germany before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text refers to Pierre Des Vignes only as a “famous chancelier” and mentions his alleged authorship, but it contains no indication that he was physically present in Germany or any specific location there. There is no date associated with him nor any event linking him to the region within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_pierre_des_vignes", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pierre Des Vignes" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “par la plume de son fameux chancelier, Pierre Des Vignes” – i.e., Pierre Des Vignes was the papal chancellor who wrote letters to princes across Europe. The papacy’s chancellery was based in Rome (the Papal States), which lies within modern‑day Europe. Thus the text implies that Des Vignes was physically present in Europe at some point before 1756, when he could write from his office. No contrary evidence is given; the only mention of him is as a writer from his position, confirming his presence in Europe.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document mentions “Pierre Des Vignes” only as a historical figure, identified by his role and an accusation. It does not provide any date or location tied to him within the text, nor does it state that he was physically present in Europe during the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1756). Because there is no explicit evidence of his presence at a specific European location within that timeframe, we cannot confirm his physical presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_frederic", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Frédéric II", "Fréderic" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_brabant", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Brabant" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of a new emperor and lists several dukes, including “les ducs de Baviére, de Saxe, d' Autriche et de Brabant.” It explicitly states that the newly chosen emperor was **not** one of those dukes. The only mention of Frédéric II (or Fréderic) in the text is as the father of Conrad, who later became king of the Romans; there is no reference to Frédéric II being present or visiting Brabant. Therefore, the document provides no evidence that Frédéric II was physically at the location of Brabant before its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of an emperor and mentions “les ducs de Baviére, de Saxe, d' Autriche et de Brabant” but does not state that Frédéric II (or Fréderic) was present at Brabant. No date or explicit event linking him to that location is provided within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication in 1756. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence, and the claim cannot be confirmed.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of an “empereur” and refers to a newly chosen “César,” but it only notes that this person was not selected by the dukes or princes of Germany; it does not state that César himself was physically present in Germany. No mention of César traveling, residing, or being in any German city appears before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of a new emperor (César) among various princes and bishops, but it does not state that César himself was physically present in Germany or any specific location within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date. The only reference to “Allemagne” is as a region where princes were consulted; there is no mention of César being there at all. Since the text lacks explicit evidence of César’s presence in Allemagne during the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q1720_mayence", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1720", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Mayence" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Les évêques de Strasbourg, de Würtsbourg, de Spire, de Metz, avec ceux de Mayence, de Cologne et de Trèves, créèrent cet empereur.” This indicates that the bishops of Mayence were part of a group that helped elect an emperor (César), but it does not provide any indication that César himself was physically present in Mayence. No mention of César traveling to or residing at Mayence appears elsewhere in the text. Therefore there is no evidence that César was at Mayence before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage lists “les archevêques de … Cologne et de Mayence” among the electors who chose a new emperor, but it does not state that César himself was physically present at Mayence during the relevant time window (the 30‑day period ending on 1756). The only mention of César is in the sentence “Le nouveau César ne fut choisi …”, indicating his election rather than his presence. No date or explicit statement linking César to Mayence within that month appears in the text, so there is no evidence of his physical presence at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_frederic", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Frédéric II", "Fréderic" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q40_autriche", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q40", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Autriche" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of an emperor and mentions several dukes, including those from Autriche, but it does not state that Frédéric II himself was physically present there. It only notes that he had previously been elected king of the Romans in Germany (“Il avait déjà élu roi des romains en Allemagne Conrad fils de Frédéric II”). There is no mention of Frédéric II traveling to or residing in Austria before 1756, nor any reference to him being at Autriche. Therefore there is no evidence that he was physically present at the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the election of an emperor and references “Conrad fils de Frédéric II,” indicating that Frédéric II is the father of Conrad. No sentence in the text states that Frédéric II himself was present in Austria, nor does it provide any date or event linking him to Austria within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). The only mention of “Autriche” appears in a list of electors and is unrelated to Frédéric II. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Frédéric II was physically present at Austria during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q365_cologne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q365", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Cologne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a council of bishops and princes who “créèrent cet empereur.” It lists among them “les évêques de … Cologne,” indicating that those bishops were part of the assembly. However, it does not state that César himself was physically present in Cologne; it only notes his role as an emperor and references to his correspondence or actions elsewhere. No mention of César traveling to or residing at Cologne appears before 1756. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting his presence at that location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses bishops from Cologne and other locations, but it does not state that any individual named “César” was physically present in Cologne. The only mention of a person named César is in the context of an emperor being chosen, with no explicit location or date tied to him. Since there is no textual evidence linking the name “César” to the place “Cologne” within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1756), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv-NIL_conrad", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Conrad" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk238.tsv_Q3138_trèves", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q3138", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Trèves" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the election of an emperor and mentions “Conrad” only as “roi des romains en Allemagne,” indicating his role in a German context, but it does not state that he was physically present at Trèves or any other location there. The text refers to Trèves only in the context of bishops creating an emperor, with no mention of Conrad’s presence. Therefore there is no evidence that Conrad was at Trèves before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the creation of an emperor by a group of bishops and dukes, including those from Trèves, but it does not state that Conrad himself was physically present at Trèves or provide any date linking his presence to that location within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1756). The only reference to Conrad is an earlier mention of him being elected “roi des romains” in Germany, which is unrelated to a visit to Trèves. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at Trèves during the required timeframe, we cannot confirm it.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Perouse Voyage chunk96", "time_period": "1797", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1797", "language": "fr", "text": " On doit désirer que le hasard et des combinaisons heureuses mettent les bâtimens de sa majesté à portée de rencontrer quelques -unes de ces îles perdues pour la navigation, qui, en leur offrant, pour la suite de leurs découvertes, des ressources en vivres et en rafraîchissemens, pourraient aussi contribuer à l' accroissement des connaissances humaines. 1 voyage de Magellan ( année 1519 ). du détroit auquel ce navigateur donna son nom, il fit route à l' ouest - nord - ouest jusqu' à l' équateur, qu' il passa à 9858 milles du détroit, et vers le 170e degré de longitude orientale de Paris ; et dans cette longue traversée, il ne découvrit que deux petites îles désertes, éloignées l' une de l' autre de deux cents lieues ; savoir : Saint - Pierre, par 18 ou 19 degrés de latitude sud ; l' île des Tiburons, par 14 ou 15 degrés de latitude sud. Ces îles, que Magellan nomma en général îles Malheureuses, sont encore inconnues, et on ne les a pas marquées sur la carte du grand océan équatorial, parce que leur position n' est pas indiquée d' une manière assez précise. De toutes les îles découvertes depuis Magellan, il n' y a que l' île Sauvage de Cook et l' Enfant - Perdu de Bougainville, qui pussent nous représenter les deux îles Malheureuses : elles sont à deux cents lieues l' une de l' autre, comme celles -ci, et à peu près par leur latitude ; l' île Sauvage, par 19 degrés 1 minute de latitude, et 172 degrés 30 minutes de longitude occidentale du méridien de Paris ; l' Enfant - Perdu, par 14 degrés 6 minutes de latitude, et 179 degrés 2 minutes de longitude orientale. 2 voyage de Mendana ( année 1567 ). du Callao, port de Lima, Mendana fait route à l' ouest, et parcourt quatorze cent cinquante lieues ( espagnoles, de 17 et demie au degré ) sans trouver de terres. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_saint_pierre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Saint - Pierre" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_ile", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s voyage, coordinates of islands, and mentions “Saint‑Pierre” only as a latitude reference for an island (e.g., “Saint – Pierre, par 18 ou 19 degrés de latitude sud”). It does not state that the person Saint‑Pierre himself was physically present on any island. There is no mention of Saint‑Pierre traveling to or being at an island before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s voyage and lists various locations, including “Saint - Pierre” as a reference point for latitude. It does not state that Saint‑Pierre was physically present at an island, nor does it provide any date or event linking Saint‑Pierre to such presence within the 30‑day window ending on 1797. The only mention of Saint‑Pierre is a geographic coordinate, which alone does not satisfy the requirement for physical presence at an island. Therefore there is no evidence that Saint‑Pierre was present at an island in the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv_Q1496_magellan", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q1496", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Magellan" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_malheureuses", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "îles Malheureuses" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Magellan’s 1519 voyage, noting that “Ces îles, que Magellan nomma en général îles Malheureuses.” The act of naming a place implies physical presence and knowledge of it. Since the text explicitly states he named the islands during his expedition in 1519—well before the document’s publication date of 1797—the evidence confirms that Magellan was physically present at the “îles Malheureuses” prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Magellan’s 1519 voyage and mentions the “îles Malheureuses” as geographical features, but it contains no statement that Magellan himself was physically present there within a month before the publication date (1797). The only temporal reference to Magellan is the year 1519, which lies far outside the required 30‑day window. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at the specified location in the relevant timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_saint_pierre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Saint - Pierre" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_malheureuses", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "îles Malheureuses" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Magellan’s 1519 expedition and provides the geographic coordinates of the “îles Malheureuses.” It does not mention Saint‑Pierre in any context that would indicate his physical presence at those islands, nor does it reference any travel or activity by Saint‑Pierre to the region. Since there is no textual evidence linking Saint‑Pierre to the location before 1797, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s voyage and lists several geographic points, including “Saint - Pierre” with latitude information. However, it does not state that Saint‑Pierre was physically present at the islands Malheureuses; it merely names the location as a reference point for navigation. Moreover, there is no date or temporal marker in the text that links this event to 1797 (the publication year). The only dates mentioned are from Magellan’s voyage (1519) and Mendana’s voyage (1567), both far outside the required 30‑day window before 1797. Since the text provides no explicit evidence of Saint‑Pierre’s presence at the islands Malheureuses within that timeframe, we cannot confirm it.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_enfant_perdu", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Enfant - Perdu" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_lima", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "port de Lima" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses two historical voyages: the 1519 voyage of Magellan and the 1567 voyage of Mendana, which began from Callao, the port of Lima. It provides coordinates for the island “Enfant‑Perdu” but does not state that Enfant‑Perdu itself was physically present at or visited the port of Lima during any of these voyages. The only mention of the person is as a name of an island; there is no narrative indicating that the island (or its inhabitants) were in Lima before 1797. Consequently, there is no textual evidence supporting the claim that Enfant‑Perdu was at the port of Lima prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses two voyages: Magellan’s (1519) and Mendana’s (1567). It provides coordinates for the “Enfant‑Perdu” island but contains no statement that Enfant‑Perdu himself was physically present at any location, let alone the port of Lima. The only mention of the port is in the context of Mendana’s departure (“du Callao, port de Lima”), and there is no indication that Enfant‑Perdu was involved or even near that port. Moreover, the document’s publication date is 1797; the relevant events described are from the mid‑16th century, far outside the 30‑day window preceding 1797. Consequently, there is no textual evidence supporting Enfant‑Perdu’s presence at the port of Lima within that timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv_Q1496_magellan", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q1496", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Magellan" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_sauvage", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île Sauvage" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document discusses Magellan’s 1519 expedition, noting that he “ne découvrit que deux petites îles désertes” (found two small deserted islands) but does not state that he visited or was present at the island Sauvage. The text only provides coordinates for the island Sauvage and mentions it as part of the Malheureuses group; there is no mention of Magellan’s presence there, nor any other evidence linking him to that location before 1797. Therefore we cannot confirm his physical presence at the island.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s 1519 expedition and provides the geographic coordinates of the island Sauvage (discovered later by Cook). It contains no statement that Magellan himself visited or was present on the island, nor does it give any date near the publication year 1797. The only temporal reference is “année 1519,” which is far outside the required 30‑day window before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence in the text that Magellan was physically present at the island Sauvage within the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv_Q313273_mendana", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q313273", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mendana" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_lima", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "port de Lima" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states: “2 voyage de Mendana ( année 1567 ). du Callao, port de Lima, Mendana fait route à l' ouest…”. This indicates that Mendana was physically present at the Callao port of Lima during his 1567 voyage. Since this event occurred well before the document’s publication date of 1797, there is clear evidence of his presence at the specified location prior to that date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Mendana’s voyage as occurring in the year 1567 (“2 voyage de Mendana ( année 1567 )”). The only location mentioned is “du Callao, port de Lima,” but this refers to his departure from that port during a 16th‑century expedition. There is no mention of Mendana being at the port de Lima in any timeframe close to the document’s publication date (the window is roughly August 28 – September 27, 1797). Since the text provides no evidence that he was present there within the required 30‑day period before 1797, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_enfant_perdu", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Enfant - Perdu" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the “Enfant‑Perdu” as an island in the Pacific, providing its latitude and longitude coordinates. It does not mention any individual named “Enfant‑Perdu” traveling or being present anywhere else, let alone in Paris. There is no reference to a person’s presence at that location before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the location of the island “Enfant‑Perdu” in terms of its latitude and longitude relative to Paris, but it contains no statement that the person or entity named “Enfant‑Perdu” was physically present at Paris. There is no mention of a visit, residence, or any event involving Enfant‑Perdu in Paris within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1797). Therefore, there is no evidence supporting the claim that Enfant‑Perdu was present at Paris during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_enfant_perdu", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Enfant - Perdu" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_sauvage", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île Sauvage" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the two “Malicious Islands” discovered by Magellan in 1519: the Île Sauvage and the Enfant‑Perdu. It provides separate coordinates for each island, indicating they are distinct locations. No sentence or clause mentions that the Enfant‑Perdu was physically present on, visited, or otherwise associated with the Île Sauvage before the document’s publication date (1797). Consequently there is no textual evidence supporting the claim of such a presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage provides the geographic coordinates of the “Île Sauvage” and the “Enfant‑Perdu,” but it does not state that Enfant‑Perdu was physically present on Île Sauvage, nor does it give any date or event linking the two. The only temporal reference in the text is the year 1567 for a voyage of Mendana, which is far earlier than the publication date (1797). Since there is no explicit evidence that Enfant‑Perdu was at Île Sauvage within the 30‑day window before 1797, we must conclude that the claim cannot be verified.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_enfant_perdu_de_bougainville", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Enfant - Perdu de Bougainville" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_sauvage", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île Sauvage" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage lists the coordinates of two distinct islands, “Île Sauvage” (19° 1′ N, 172° 30′ W) and “Enfant‑Perdu de Bougainville” (14° 6′ S, 179° 2′ E). It explicitly states that the islands are about two hundred lieues apart and have similar latitudes. There is no mention of Enfant‑Perdu being located on or visiting Île Sauvage; rather it describes each island separately as separate entities. Consequently, there is no textual evidence indicating that the person “Enfant‑Perdu de Bougainville” was physically present at Île Sauvage before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage lists the coordinates of the “Île Sauvage” and the “Enfant‑Perdu” but does not state that Enfant‑Perdu was physically present on Île Sauvage, nor does it provide any date or event linking the person to that location within 30 days before the publication year (1797). Therefore there is no explicit evidence of presence meeting the criteria.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv_Q313273_mendana", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q313273", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mendana" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_callao", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Callao" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Mendana’s expedition in the year 1567 and explicitly notes that it began “du Callao, port de Lima” (from Callao). This indicates that Mendana was physically present at Callao during his voyage, which occurred well before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is direct evidence of his presence in Callao prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Mendana’s voyage from Callao in the year 1567 (“2 voyage de Mendana ( année 1567 ). du Callao, port de Lima, Mendana fait route à l’ ouest…”). The publication date of the document is given as 1797. The event referenced is more than three hundred years earlier and does not fall within the 30‑day window preceding 1797. There are no other mentions of Mendana being in Callao near that time, nor any indication that he returned or was present at all during that period. Therefore there is no evidence that Mendana was physically present at Callao within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_saint_pierre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Saint - Pierre" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_tiburons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "des Tiburons" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Magellan’s 1519 voyage and provides latitude/longitude coordinates for two islands: Saint Pierre (≈ 18–19° S) and the island of the Tiburons (≈ 14–15° S). It notes that these are separate, unnamed islands discovered by Magellan. The text does not mention Saint Pierre traveling to or being present at the island of the Tiburons; it merely lists their coordinates as part of Magellan’s route description. Since there is no explicit statement that Saint Pierre was physically at the location of the Tiburons before 1797, we have no evidence supporting such a presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s voyage, naming Saint‑Pierre only as a latitude reference for an island (Saint Pierre) and describing the “îles Malheureuses” (including des Tiburons). It contains no sentence indicating that Saint‑Pierre himself was physically present at des Tiburons. Moreover, all dates mentioned are from the 16th century (e.g., year 1519), far outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1797. Since there is no explicit evidence of Saint‑Pierre’s presence at that location within the required timeframe, we conclude that the claim does not hold.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_enfant_perdu_de_bougainville", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Enfant - Perdu de Bougainville" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_equatorial", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "océan équatorial" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the geographical coordinates of the “Enfant – Perdu” island (14° 6′ S latitude, 179° 2′ E longitude) and notes that it lies in the equatorial Pacific. However, the text refers only to the location of an island; it does not mention any individual named “Enfant – Perdu” or indicate that a person was physically present at that site. Since there is no evidence linking a person to being at the ocean equatorial before 1797, we cannot confirm presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s voyage (1519) and later mentions the island “Enfant‑Perdu de Bougainville” with its coordinates, but it does not provide any date or statement that this person was physically present at the equatorial ocean within 30 days before the document’s publication in 1797. The text only identifies the island’s location and its discovery; there is no explicit evidence of presence during the required time window. Therefore we cannot confirm the claim.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_enfant_perdu_de_bougainville", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Enfant - Perdu de Bougainville" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_malheureuses", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "îles Malheureuses" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Magellan’s 1519 voyage and mentions two islands, “l’île Sauvage de Cook” and “l’Enfant‑Perdu de Bougainville,” as the only discovered islands that represent the so‑called “îles Malheureuses.” It states that these two islands are 200 leagues apart, indicating they occupy distinct positions on the equatorial ocean. The text does not provide any indication that Enfant‑Perdu was physically present at or within the location of the “îles Malheureuses” itself; it merely identifies the island as one of the two that symbolize those uncharted islands. Since there is no evidence in the document that Enfant‑Perdu was located at the site of the “îles Malheureuses,” we conclude that the claim is unsupported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s voyage and mentions that “l’ Enfant‑Perdu de Bougainville” is one of the two islands known as the “îles Malheureuses.” It provides geographic coordinates for this island but does not state that the person (or any individual) was physically present there. The text only identifies the island itself, not a presence event. Since no explicit statement indicates the person’s physical presence at the location within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1797), the criteria for TRUE are not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv_Q7324_cook", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q7324", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cook" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_sauvage", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île Sauvage" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “l’île Sauvage de Cook” is one of the islands discovered since Magellan’s voyage. Naming an island after a person implies that the person visited and identified it, as he would have been there to record its existence and bestow his name. Since this naming occurs in a document dated 1797, it indicates that Cook had already been at the island before that date. Therefore there is explicit evidence of Cook’s presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s voyage and mentions “the island Sauvage of Cook” as a geographical reference, but it contains no explicit statement that Cook himself was physically present on the island or that he visited it at any time. There is no date associated with Cook’s presence near the island, nor any mention of an event linking him to the location within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). Because the text provides only a reference to the island as belonging to Cook and not evidence of his actual presence there in that timeframe, we cannot confirm that he was physically present at the island Sauvage within the required period. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv_Q7324_cook", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q7324", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cook" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_malheureuses", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "îles Malheureuses" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s 1519 voyage and lists the two “îles Malheureuses” (Savage Island, named after Captain James Cook, and the Lost Island). It identifies Savage Island as belonging to Cook but does not state that Cook himself visited or was present at those islands. The text merely notes the existence of his island among the uncharted locations; it provides no evidence of Cook’s physical presence there before 1797. Therefore, based on the document alone, we cannot confirm that Cook was physically at the islands Malheureuses prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Magellan’s voyage and later mentions “l’île Sauvage de Cook” as one of the discovered islands, providing its latitude and longitude relative to Paris. It does not state that Captain James Cook himself was physically present on those islands, nor does it give any date or time reference linking his presence to the location within a month before the document’s publication (1797). The only mention of Cook is as a name attached to an island; there is no evidence of his actual visit. Therefore we cannot confirm that Cook was at “îles Malheureuses” during the required 30‑day window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv_Q1496_magellan", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q1496", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Magellan" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk96.tsv-NIL_equatorial", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "océan équatorial" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Magellan’s 1519 expedition: “du détroit auquel ce navigateur donna son nom, il fit route à l’ ouest - nord - ouest jusqu’ à l' équateur.” This indicates that Magellan physically reached the equatorial region of the ocean during his voyage. Since this voyage occurred in 1519 and the document’s publication date is 1797, there is clear evidence that Magellan was present at the equatorial ocean before the document’s date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Magellan’s 1519 voyage and mentions the equatorial ocean as part of his route, but it does not provide any indication that he himself was in the equatorial ocean during the period leading up to the document’s publication date (1797). The only temporal reference is “année 1519,” which lies far outside the 30‑day window before 1797. No other sentence or context suggests Magellan’s presence at that location in the relevant timeframe. Therefore, there is no evidence supporting his physical presence at the equatorial ocean within the required period.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Beroalde moyen chunk134", "time_period": "1616", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1616", "language": "fr", "text": " Seneque. Il m' est advis que cela n' est pas beau de parler ainsi des femmes, il semble que vous en dictes comme si elles n' estoient pas femmes de bien. Perse. Vous avez raison mon pere mon ami, vous estes digne d' estre Empereur, d' autant que la Roine d' Egypte vous ayme ( parlez bas de peur de ce que je ne sçay, tant j' ay peur de faillir ) c' est de par le gibet, aussi je me souviens que l'annee que j' estois Recteur de l'Université de Paris, sous le nom de Marius ce grand Consul Romain, je vy pendre une maquerelle du bourg de Four, la raison estoit qu' elle se battoit avec une autre qui lui dit ha chienne, tu veux icy faire de la Royne d' Egypte. Tu as menty dit elle, je suis femme de bien ; quand aux fillettes qui sont du tiers ordre je les plains en ma conscience. Hé que j' ay beu, je pense que je sors de propos & vay de la truye au levain. Archimedes. Qui sont celles que vous appelez fillettes. L’Autre. Chacun en dira sa ratelee m' ayant ouy. ANNOTATION FIllettes, nous disons celles qui sont capables de rendre conte par deduction, ainsi sont -elles propres au deduict; il y en y a generalement de trois sortes, & ceci pour ample intelligence de ce qu' on dira tantost. Nostre bon ami que voici ; je ne dis pas vessi, mais chassez ces chiens ces femmes ont vessi. Or donc, il y a trois ordres de ces commeres ; il y a celles qui tiennent rang entre les femmes de bien : il y a les filles d’Eglise, lesquelles demeurent aux cloistres, actu aut potentia vel potestate ; & les autres qui sont comme à Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache, celles -là sont du tiers ordre. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_camp_de_fior", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Camp de Fior" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q71_geneve", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q71", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Geneve" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage lists three locations—Geneve, Camp de Fior, and pres de Lortache—as separate places (“à Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache”). It does not state that Camp de Fior was located in or visited Geneve; it merely names them together. Since there is no explicit evidence of the person (Camp de Fior) being present at Geneve before 1616, we cannot confirm such a presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage lists several places (“Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache”) but does not state that the individual “Camp de Fior” was physically present in Geneve or any other event indicating his presence there within a month of the publication date. There is no explicit mention of him being at Geneve; it merely names the location as part of a list. Therefore, the text provides no evidence that the person was present at the specified location during the required time window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q2054_seneque", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q2054", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Seneque" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q83311_perse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q83311", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Perse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text begins with “Seneque.” and later contains the word “Perse” in a separate clause, but it does not state that Seneque was physically present at Perse or that he visited that location. The only mention of Seneque is as a heading; there is no accompanying narrative indicating his presence elsewhere. Since the document provides no evidence of Seneque’s physical presence at Perse before its publication date (1616), we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Seneque” and a separate token “Perse,” but there is no sentence or clause that links Seneque to being in Perse, nor does it provide any date or time reference that would place such an event within 30 days before the publication date of 1616. The text merely mentions “Perse” as a name without indicating location or presence. Because the required evidence (Seneque present at Perse with a temporal anchor close to 1616) is absent, we cannot confirm his presence there.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_marius", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Marius" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “la année que j’ estois Recteur de l’Université de Paris, sous le nom de Marius ce grand Consul Romain…”. This indicates that the narrator was serving as rector of the University of Paris under the name Marius at some point before the document’s publication date (1616). The phrase “l’année que j’ estois” explicitly refers to a prior year, confirming his presence in Paris. Therefore there is direct textual evidence that Marius was physically present in Paris before 1616.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that the narrator was “Recteur de l’Université de Paris, sous le nom de Marius” during a particular year, but it does not provide any explicit date or mention of being physically present in Paris within 30 days before the document’s publication (1616). The reference to his role is general and temporal (“l’année que j’ estois”), without indicating a specific occurrence that would satisfy the requirement. Therefore there is no evidence that Marius was present at Paris during the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_roine_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Roine d' Egypte", "Royne d' Egypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q83311_perse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q83311", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Perse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Perse” and the phrase “la Roine d’ Egypte,” but it does not state that the queen was physically present at Perse. The text merely praises her as a title (“digne d’ être Empereur, d’ autant que la Roine d’ Egypte”) without any reference to travel or residence in Perse. No other part of the document mentions the queen’s location or any event that would place her there before 1616. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that she was at Perse prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the phrase “Roine d’ Egypte” only as part of a sentence about a consul, and there is no mention of the location “Perse” in any context that links this person to that place. The text does not provide any explicit statement indicating that Roine d’ Egypte was physically present at Perse within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1616). Therefore, the required evidence for presence is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_lortache", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Lortache" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q71_geneve", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q71", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Geneve" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage lists several places (“Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache”) and refers to “les autres qui sont comme à Geneve…”. This indicates that the other people are located near those places, but it does not state that Lortache himself was physically present in Geneve. There is no mention of Lortache traveling there or being at the location; only a proximity reference. Therefore there is no direct evidence that Lortache was in Geneve before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage lists several places (“Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache”) but does not state that the person “Lortache” was physically present at Geneve. The phrase “pres de Lortache” merely indicates proximity to Lortache, while “à Geneve” refers to a separate location. There is no explicit conjunction or temporal marker linking Lortache’s presence with Geneve within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1616). Consequently, there is no direct evidence that Lortache was at Geneve during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_four", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Four" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “le bourg de Four” (the town of Four) and notes that the speaker was rector at the University of Paris, but it does not state that the town of Four itself was present in or visited Paris. The only reference to Paris is the narrator’s role as rector there; there is no indication that Four ever traveled to or resided in Paris before 1616. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that “Four” was at Paris.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “le bourg de Four” as a place name, but it does not state that the person named “Four” was in Paris or any date near the publication year (1616). The only reference to Paris is “l’Université de Paris,” which indicates the speaker’s role there, not the presence of “Four.” Since no explicit statement places “Four” at Paris within a month before 1616, the condition for TRUE is not met. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_four", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Four" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q83311_perse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q83311", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Perse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains references to “Perse.” and to the place “Four” (a bourge), but there is no sentence or clause that connects the person named “Four” with any location called Perse. The only mention of “Perse.” appears as a heading or title, while “Four” is described as a town (“le bourg de Four”). No narrative indicates that the individual “Four” was physically present in Perse at any time before 1616. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the word “Perse” as a heading, but it does not appear in any sentence that mentions the person “Four”. There are no explicit statements such as “Four was at Perse on …” or any date reference within 30 days before the publication date (1616). Consequently, there is no textual evidence confirming that Four was physically present at Perse during the required time window. Therefore we classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_roine_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Roine d' Egypte", "Royne d' Egypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage quotes a person (Seneque) referring to “Marius ce grand Consul Romain” and calling someone the “Royne d’ Egypte.” The text contains no mention of Paris or any indication that the “Royne d’ Egypte” was physically present in Paris. It only names her title, not her location. Therefore there is no evidence that she was at Paris before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “la Roine d' Egypte” only in a comparative statement (“vous êtes dignes d’être Empereur, autant que la Roine d’ Egypte vous aime”) and elsewhere refers to “Marius ce grand Consul Romain”. There is no mention of the person being in Paris or any location near Paris within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1616). The text does not provide a date or explicit presence evidence linking Roine d’ Egypte to Paris. Therefore, there is no direct textual support that she was physically present at Paris during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_marius", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Marius" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q83311_perse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q83311", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Perse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage begins with “Seneque… Perse.” The word “Perse” appears in the context of a dialogue, not as a place where someone was physically present. Later in the text, the name “Marius” is mentioned only to identify him as a consul and rector; there is no statement that he was at Perse or any other location. Consequently, the document provides no evidence that Marius ever visited Perse before its publication date of 1616.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains the word “Perse” only in the sentence “Perse. Vous avez raison mon pere mon ami…”, which does not associate any person with that location or provide a date. The name “Marius” appears later (“sous le nom de Marius ce grand Consul Romain”), but this is unrelated to Perse and no temporal marker (e.g., a year, month, or day) is given in the passage linking him to Perse within the 30‑day window before the publication date of 1616. Because there is no explicit evidence that Marius was physically present at Perse during that period, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q2054_seneque", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q2054", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Seneque" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the sentence “je me souviens que l’annee que j’ estois Recteur de l'Université de Paris…”. This indicates that Seneque held the position of rector at the University of Paris during a specific year, implying his physical presence in Paris. Since the document’s publication date is 1616 and the statement refers to an earlier year (the text itself does not specify the year but it is clearly before 1616), Seneque was indeed present in Paris prior to the document’s publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains the name “Seneque” but does not state that he was in Paris or provide any date that places him there within 30 days before the publication year (1616). The only reference to Paris is a mention of being rector at the University of Paris, attributed to someone named Marius, not Seneque. No explicit statement links Seneque’s presence in Paris with a timeframe near 1616. Therefore there is no evidence that Seneque was physically present in Paris within the required window.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_archimedes", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Archimedes" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document contains the word “Archimedes” as a heading or label, but it does not provide any indication that Archimedes himself was physically present in Paris. There are no references to his residence, travel, or activities in Paris before the publication date of 1616. The text merely names him and then proceeds with unrelated commentary about women’s statuses and a university rector. Since there is no explicit evidence linking Archimedes to Paris, we cannot conclude that he was present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document includes the heading “Archimedes.”, but it does not mention any location or a specific time that would place Archimedes in Paris during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1616). There is no explicit statement such as “Archimedes was in Paris on …” or a date reference within that period. Therefore there is no evidence in the text that Archimedes was physically present at Paris in the required timeframe, so we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_archimedes", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Archimedes" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q71_geneve", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q71", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Geneve" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a French text that mentions “Archimedes” as a person, but it does not state that he was in Geneva or any other location. The only reference to the place “Geneve” appears in a clause describing “les autres qui sont comme à Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache,” which refers to a different group of individuals, not Archimedes himself. Since there is no explicit statement that Archimedes was physically present at Geneva before the document’s publication date (1616), we cannot infer his presence from the text.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Archimedes” but does not associate him with any location. The only mention of Geneve appears in a separate clause describing other individuals (“celles … à Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache”), and there is no indication that Archimedes was present at Geneve or even that he was physically near the city within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (early 1616). Because the text provides no explicit evidence of Archimedes’ presence in Geneve during that period, we cannot confirm his physical presence there. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_archimedes", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Archimedes" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q83311_perse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q83311", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Perse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Archimedes” but does not associate this person with any location named “Perse.” The only reference to a place is “Perse,” which appears in a different sentence unrelated to Archimedes. Since there is no explicit statement that Archimedes was physically present at Perse before 1616, the text provides no evidence of his presence there. Therefore we cannot conclude that he was at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the word “Archimedes” but does not associate him with any place called “Perse.” The only occurrence of “Perse” is a standalone heading, unrelated to Archimedes or any event. There is no sentence that states Archimedes was at Perse within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1616). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence there.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_roine_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Roine d' Egypte", "Royne d' Egypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q71_geneve", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q71", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Geneve" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses various individuals and locations, but it does not state that the person “Roine d’ Egypte” (also called “Royne d’ Egypte”) was physically present in Geneva. The only reference to Geneva is a clause about “les autres qui sont comme à Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache,” which refers to other people and does not link the named individual to that location. There are no dates or explicit statements indicating her presence at Geneva before 1616. Therefore there is no evidence supporting her physical presence in Geneva prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Roine d’ Egypte” but it appears in a sentence that does not mention any location or time reference. The only mention of Geneve occurs later, referring to other individuals (“celles … à Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache”), and there is no indication that the queen was among them nor that she was present at Geneve within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1616). Since the text provides no explicit evidence of her presence at Geneve in that timeframe, we cannot confirm it. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_four", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Four" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q71_geneve", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q71", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Geneve" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “le bourg de Four” (the town of Four) as the place where the narrator was rector, but it does not state that anyone named Four traveled to or resided in Geneva. There is no reference to a person called “Four” being at Geneve, nor any travel or presence there. The only mention of Geneva appears later in a separate clause about “les autres qui sont comme à Geneve,” referring to other people, not the individual “Four.” Thus there is no evidence that the person named Four was physically present in Geneva before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the word “Geneve” only in the phrase “les autres qui sont comme à Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache,” indicating that some people were located there. The name “Four” appears earlier as a town (“le bourg de Four”), not as an individual. There is no sentence or clause linking the person named “Four” to being at Geneve, nor any date reference within the text that would place such an event in the 30‑day window preceding the publication year 1616. Consequently, the text provides no explicit evidence of the presence of a person called “Four” at Geneve during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv-NIL_camp_de_fior", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Camp de Fior" ], "loc_entity_id": "1616_Beroalde_moyen_chunk134.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage lists “Camp de Fior” among several places (Geneve, Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache) and does not refer to any individual named “Camp de Fior.” The only mention of Paris is in the context of a university rector’s title, with no connection to Camp de Fior. Since there is no textual evidence that a person associated with Camp de Fior was physically present in Paris before 1616, we conclude that such presence cannot be inferred from the document.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage lists “à Geneve, à Camp de Fior, pres de Lortache” as places in France, but it does not mention Paris at all, nor does it provide any date or time reference that would place the person there within 30 days before the publication date (1616). Since no explicit evidence of presence in Paris during the required window exists, we cannot confirm the claim.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Rabelais Gargantua chunk35", "time_period": "1542", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1542", "language": "fr", "text": " Car elle estoit grande comme six Oriflans, & avoit les pieds fenduz en doigtz, comme le cheval de Jules Cesar, les aureilles ainsi pendentes, comme les chievres de Languegoth, & une petite corne au cul, Au reste avoit poil d' alezan toustade entreillize de grizes pommelettes. Mais sus tout avoit la queue horrible. Car elle estoit poy plus poy moins grosse comme la pile sainct Mars aupres de Langes : & ainsi quarree, avecques les brancars ny plus ny moins ennicrochez, que sont les espicz au bled. Si de ce vous esmerveillez : esmerveillez vous dadvantaige de la queue des beliers de Scythie : que pesoit plus de trente livres, & des moutons de Surie, esquelz fault ( si Tenaud dict vray ) affuster une charrette au cul, pour la porter tant elle est longue & pesante. Vous ne l' avez pas telle vous aultres paillardes de plat pays. Et fut amenee par mer en troys carracques & un brigantin jusques au port de Olone en Thalmondoys Lors que Grandgousier la veit, Voicy ( dist il ) bien le cas pour porter mon filz a Paris. Or ca de par dieu, tout yra bien. Il sera grand clerc on temps advenir. Si n' estoient messieurs les bestes, nous vivrions comme clercs. Au lendemain apres boyre ( comme entendez ) prindrent chemin, Gargantua son precepteur Ponocrates & ses gens, ensemble eulx Eudemon le jeune paige. Et par ce que c' estoit en temps serain & bien attrempé, son pere luy feist faire des botes fauves. Babin les nomme brodequins. Ainsi joyeusement passerent leur grand chemin : & tousjours grand chere : jusques au dessus de Orleans. Au quel lieu estoit une ample forest de la longueur de trente & cinq lieues & de largeur dix & sept ou environ. Icelle estoit horriblement fertile & copieuse en mousches bovines & freslons, de sorte que c' estoit une vraye briguanderye pour les pauvres jumens, asnes, & chevaulx. Mais la jument de Gargantua vengea honnestement tous les oultrages en icelle perpetrees sur les bestes de son espece, par un tour, duquel ne se doubtoient mie. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_thalmondoys", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Thalmondoys" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_olone", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "port de Olone" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a ship’s journey “en troys carracques & un brigantin jusques au port de Olone en Thalmondoys”. The phrase indicates that the port of Olone is located within the region called Thalmondoys, but it does not state that any individual named “Thalmondoys” was physically present there. There is no mention of a person traveling to or being at the port; only the location itself is referenced. Therefore, the text provides no evidence that the person “Thalmondoys” was at the port of Olone before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states: “et fut amenee par mer en troys carracques & un brigantin jusques au port de Olone en Thalmondoys Lors que Grandgousier la veit…”. This sentence describes a ship arriving at the port of Olone in Thalmondoys, but it does not mention any person named “Thalmondoys” being present there. The only reference to “Thalmondoys” is as part of the place name itself (“en Thalmondoys”), not as an individual’s presence. Since no explicit statement links the person to that location within the required 30‑day window before the publication date (1542), we cannot confirm his presence there.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_grandgousier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Grandgousier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_olone", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "port de Olone" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that a ship arrived “en troys carracques & un brigantin jusques au port de Olone en Thalmondoys. Lors que Grandgousier la veit, Voicy (dist il) bien le cas pour porter mon filz a Paris.” The phrase “Lors que Grandgousier la veit” indicates that Grandgousier was present at the port of Olone when he saw the ship. Since this event occurs before the document’s publication date of 1542, it proves his physical presence there prior to that date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “port de Olone en Thalmondoys Lors que Grandgousier la veit” indicating Grandgousier was present at the port. However, the text provides no explicit temporal marker (e.g., a date or month) linking this event to the publication year 1542. Without such evidence, we cannot confirm that his presence falls within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date. Therefore the criteria are not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_thalmondoys", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Thalmondoys" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “un brigantin jusques au port de Olone en Thalmondoys” and that the cargo was intended for Paris, but it does not state that Thalmondoys itself visited or was present in Paris. The only reference to Paris is as a destination of goods, not as a location where Thalmondoys was physically present. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that the person “Thalmondoys” was at Paris before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains the phrase “port de Olone en Thalmondoys” which identifies a port named after Thalmondoys, but it does not state that Thalmondoys himself was present there or elsewhere. The only mention of Paris in the passage is “pour porter mon filz a Paris,” referring to carrying something to Paris; this sentence does not link Thalmondoys to Paris at all. No other part of the document provides evidence that Thalmondoys was physically in Paris during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (early 1542). Because there is no explicit statement or contextual cue indicating his presence, we cannot confirm his presence within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_grandgousier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Grandgousier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “Grandgousier” as a person who was at the port of Olone in Thalmondoys when he saw something, and it notes that he intended to bring his “filz” to Paris. However, there is no explicit statement that Grandgousier himself was physically present in Paris; only that he planned to transport goods there. The text does not provide any direct evidence of his presence at the location or a date before 1542. Therefore, based on the available information, we cannot confirm that Grandgousier was in Paris prior to the document’s publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Grandgousier la veit” and that he was there to carry his staff to Paris (“pour porter mon filz à Paris”). However, it provides no explicit date or time reference for this event; the only temporal marker in the text is the year 1542. The requirement is that the person be present at the specified location within approximately one month before the document’s publication date (i.e., early September 1542). Since the text does not contain a date that falls inside that window, we cannot confirm that Grandgousier was in Paris during the required 30‑day period. Therefore the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the condition.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_surie", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Surie" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q845909_scythie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q845909", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Scythie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “les moutons de Surie” and mentions the “queue des beliers de Scythie,” indicating that Surie is a separate source of sheep while Scythie is another region. There is no statement or implication in the text that Surie itself was physically present at Scythie, nor any mention of travel, movement, or presence of Surie in that location before 1542. Consequently, there is no evidence supporting the claim that Surie was at Scythie prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the phrase “les moutons de Surie,” which indicates that Surie’s sheep were present somewhere, but it does not state that Surie herself was at Scythie or that she visited Scythie during any time period. There is no explicit mention of Surie being in Scythie, nor any date tied to such an event within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1542). Therefore there is no evidence that Surie was physically present at Scythie in that timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q60836436_gargantua", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q60836436", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Gargantua" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q6548_orleans", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q6548", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Orleans" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a landscape and mentions “jusqu’au dessus de Orléans,” indicating the forest reaches up to that point, but it does not state that Gargantua himself was physically present there. The only reference to Gargantua in the text is his presence at the port of Olone (“…un brigantin jusques au port de Olone en Thalmondoys Lors que Grandgousier la veit”). There is no explicit mention of him visiting or being in Orléans, nor any indication that he was physically present there. Therefore, based on the text alone, there is no evidence that Gargantua was at Orléans before 1542.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains a reference to “Orleans” (“jusques au dessus de Orleans”), but it does not state that Gargantua himself was present there, nor does it provide any date or time frame linking his presence to the location. The only mention of Gargantua is in the context of his preceptor Ponocrates and a group traveling together; no explicit statement ties him to Orleans within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1542). Therefore there is no direct evidence that Gargantua was physically present at Orleans during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_tenaud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Tenaud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q845909_scythie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q845909", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Scythie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the “queen of Scythia” and her long, heavy tail, but it does not contain any statement that Tenaud was physically present at Scythia or that he traveled there. The only mention of Tenaud is in a separate clause about carrying something to Paris (“Voicy (dist il) bien le cas pour porter mon filz a Paris”), which refers to an action elsewhere, not to his presence in Scythia. No dates, travel references, or explicit location ties connect Tenaud with the region of Scythia before 1542. Therefore there is no evidence that he was physically present at Scythie prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains references to “Scythie” only in the phrase “la queue des beliers de Scythie,” which describes a physical feature of a queen, not an event or location where Tenaud was present. The text also mentions “Grandgousier la veit, Voicy (dist il)” and later “porter mon filz à Paris,” but it does not state that Tenaud himself was in Scythie, nor does it provide a date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication of 1542. Consequently there is no explicit evidence in the document that Tenaud was physically present at Scythie during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q60836436_gargantua", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q60836436", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Gargantua" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Gargantua traveling with his teacher Ponocrates and companions, but it contains no mention of him being in or visiting Paris. The only reference to Paris is “porter mon filz a Paris,” which refers to another person (Voicy) and does not indicate Gargantua’s presence there. Since the text provides no evidence that Gargantua was physically present at Paris before its publication date, we conclude that he was not in Paris.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Gargantua” but only in the context of his relationship to Ponocrates and a group of followers; it does not state that he himself was physically present in Paris, nor does it provide any date or time reference linking him to Paris within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1542). The only mention of Paris is “porter mon filz à Paris,” which refers to a different individual (“Voicy”) and does not implicate Gargantua. Since there is no explicit evidence that Gargantua was in Paris during the required timeframe, the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_babin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Babin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q6548_orleans", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q6548", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Orleans" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “Babin les nomme brodequins,” indicating a naming act but providing no indication of his presence at any place, let alone Orléans. The only reference to Orléans in the text is “jusqu’au dessus de Orleans,” which describes the route’s endpoint and does not attribute Babin’s physical presence there. No other sentence links Babin with Orléans or any event that would place him in that location before 1542. Therefore, there is no textual evidence supporting the claim that Babin was physically present at Orléans prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Babin” and references to Orleans, but they appear in separate sentences with no temporal or locational linkage indicating that Babin was physically present at Orleans within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (around August 1542). The text only notes that Babin is called “brodequins” and mentions a forest near Orleans, but it does not state that Babin himself was there. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_langes", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Langes" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q845909_scythie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q845909", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Scythie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “Langes” in a phrase about a pile near it (“pile sainct Mars aupres de Langes”), but it does not state that Langes is located within or has been present at Scythie. The only reference to Scythie is the description of its tail and associated animals, with no indication that Langes was there. Therefore there is no textual evidence linking the person “Langes” to the location “Scythie” before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Langes” only in the phrase “la pile sainct Mars aupres de Langes,” which refers to a religious site near Langes, but it contains no reference to Scythie. The mention of Scythie appears later (“la queue des beliers de Scythie”) and does not connect Langes to that location or provide any temporal marker within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1542). Since there is no explicit statement indicating that Langes was physically present at Scythie during that period, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_ponocrates", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Ponocrates" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Ponocrates as “Gargantua’s precepteur” and mentions his company traveling with Gargantua, but it does not state that Ponocrates himself was in Paris or any other location. The only reference to Paris is a separate clause (“Voicy … pour porter mon filz à Paris”), which concerns a different individual (likely “Voicy”) and does not involve Ponocrates. Since there is no explicit mention of Ponocrates being present in Paris before the document’s publication date, we cannot infer his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the sentence “Gargantua son precepteur Ponocrates & ses gens, ensemble eulx Eudemon le jeune paige.” This indicates that Ponocrates was a teacher or attendant of Gargantua, but it does not mention any location. The only reference to Paris in the text is “Voicy ( dist il ) bien le cas pour porter mon filz a Paris,” which refers to another person and concerns transporting something to Paris; it does not state that Ponocrates was present there. No date or temporal marker within the 30‑day window (1541‑09‑16 to 1542‑09‑16) is attached to Ponocrates at Paris. Therefore, the text provides no explicit evidence of Ponocrates being in Paris during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_pile_sainct_mars", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "pile sainct Mars" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q845909_scythie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q845909", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Scythie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “la pile sainct Mars aupres de Langes,” indicating that the pile is associated with the place of Langes, not with Scythie. Later in the text it refers to “la queue des beliers de Scythie” concerning a different subject (the tail of Scythian people). There is no sentence or clause that places the pile itself at Scythie or describes its presence there. Consequently, the document provides no evidence that the person “pile sainct Mars” was physically present in Scythie before 1542.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the phrase “la pile sainct Mars aupres de Langes,” which identifies a place (the pile of Saint Mary) near Langes, not Scythie. No sentence in the text links this person to any event or location called Scythie, nor does it provide a date that falls within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1542). The only mention of “Scythie” is in the phrase “les brancars … au bled,” which refers to a different context and does not involve the person. Because there is no explicit evidence that the person was physically present at Scythie within the required timeframe, we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_eudemon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Eudemon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q6548_orleans", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q6548", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Orleans" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Gargantua’s teacher Ponocrates and his followers, including the young page named Eudemon, but it does not state that Eudemon was in Orleans or any other location there. The only mention of Orleans appears later as a reference to a forest near that city, unrelated to Eudemon’s presence. Since no textual evidence places Eudemon at Orleans before the document’s publication date (1542), we conclude that his physical presence at that place is unsupported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “Eudemon le jeune paige” in the context of Gargantua’s entourage, but it does not state that he was at Orleans. The only mention of Orleans is the phrase “jusques au dessus de Orleans,” which describes a location relative to a forest and has no connection to Eudemon or any date within 30 days before the publication year (1542). Therefore there is no explicit evidence in the document that Eudemon was physically present at Orleans during the required time window.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_eudemon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Eudemon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “Gargantua son precepteur Ponocrates & ses gens, ensemble eulx Eudemon le jeune paige.” This indicates that Eudemon was a page belonging to Gargantua’s teacher and his entourage. The text does not state or imply that Eudemon traveled to Paris; the only reference to Paris is “Voicy (dist il) bien le cas pour porter mon filz a Paris,” which appears unrelated to Eudemon. Since there is no explicit mention of Eudemon being in Paris before 1542, we cannot confirm his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Eudemon” only in the clause “ensemble eulx Eudemon le jeune paige,” which describes him as part of Gargantua’s entourage traveling with Ponocrates. No location is attached to this statement, and there is no separate mention that Eudemon was present at Paris within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1542). The only reference to Paris in the text concerns a different person (“Voicy”) carrying something to Paris, not Eudemon. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Eudemon was physically present in Paris during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_tenaud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Tenaud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_olone", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "port de Olone" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a journey to “port de Olone en Thalmondoys” and states that the narrator was there when Grandgousier saw him: “et fut amenee par mer en troys carracques & un brigantin jusques au port de Olone en Thalmondoys Lors que Grandgousier la veit.” The phrase “Voicy ( dist il ) bien le cas pour porter mon filz a Paris” indicates the narrator’s presence at that location. Since the text is dated before 1542, it confirms Tenaud was physically present at port of Olone prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains no explicit statement that Tenaud was physically present at the “port de Olone” during the 30‑day period preceding the document’s publication date (1542). It merely notes a ship arriving there and mentions Tenaud only in a parenthetical reference (“si Tenaud dict vray”), which indicates his authorship, not his presence. No other part of the text links Tenaud to that location or provides a date within the required window. Therefore, there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv-NIL_ponocrates", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Ponocrates" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Gargantua_chunk35.tsv_Q6548_orleans", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q6548", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Orleans" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Ponocrates as Gargantua’s preceptor (“Gargantua son precepteur Ponocrates & ses gens”), but it does not state or imply that he ever visited Orleans. The only mention of Orleans in the text is a description of a forest near that place, unrelated to Ponocrates’ activities. There are no references to him traveling there, attending events, or being present at the location before the document’s publication date (1542). Therefore, the text provides no evidence of his presence at Orleans.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Gargantua’s teacher Ponocrates and his followers, but it does not mention any visit to or presence in Orleans during the relevant timeframe. The only reference to Orleans is a separate description of a forest near that city, unrelated to Ponocrates. Since there is no explicit statement that Ponocrates was at Orleans within roughly 30 days before the document’s publication date (1542), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false } ] }, { "document_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Perouse Voyage chunk3474", "time_period": "1797", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1797", "language": "fr", "text": " Voulant seconder les intentions de son prince, il publia un recueil de cartes particulieres sous le titre d' atlas de l' empire des Russes, dans le dessein de l' augmenter & de le perfectionner de jour en jour ; mais ce n' étoit qu' un essai encore imparfait. A ce travail succéda celui que l' académie de Pétersbourg avoit résolu de faire de nouveau. M. Joseph Delisle y fut appellé, non - seulement en qualité d' astronome, mais encore comme géographe. Il mit la main à cet ouvrage, dès qu' il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726. Plusieurs membres de l' académie se joignirent à lui en 1740, pour accélérer l' entreprise dont l' exécution fut achevée en 1745. Tel est l' état de la Géographie dans les différens pays de l' Europe. Il ne reste plus qu' à parler des progrès que cette science a faits en France depuis François premier, sous le regne duquel les Sciences commencerent à fleurir. L'on y remarque dans le seizieme siecle des amateurs de la Géographie. Quelques provinces dûrent aux travaux de plusieurs savans les cartes qui en furent publiées. François de la Guillotiere natif de Bourdeaux, fut, pour ainsi dire, le premier qui profitant des lumieres des savans antérieurs & contemporains, & des siennes propres, publia en 1584 une carte générale du royaume. Il en avoit dans ses mains toutes les cartes particulieres, prêtes à être mises au jour. Celui qui s' est le plus distingué dans le siecle suivant, fut Nicolas Sanson d' Abbeville, né en 1600 d' une famille distinguée de la Picardie. Ses ouvrages sont trop connus pour vouloir les détailler ici. Ses fils Nicolas, Guillaume & Adrien, coururent la même carriere, & soûtinrent avec honneur la réputation de leur pere. Pierre Moulard Sanson, petit - sils de Nicolas Sanson, entra aussi dans les vûes de son ayeul. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_francois_de_la_guillotiere", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François de la Guillotiere" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q1479_bourdeaux", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1479", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourdeaux" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly identifies François de la Guillotiere as “natif de Bourdeaux,” meaning he was born and grew up in Bordeaux. Being native implies that he resided there before the document’s publication date of 1797, satisfying the condition for presence at the location prior to that time.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text identifies François de la Guillotiere as “natif de Bourdeaux,” indicating his birthplace, but it provides no statement or contextual clue that he was physically present in Bordeaux during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between 28 Aug 1796 and 28 Sep 1797). The only dates mentioned in the passage concern other individuals and events (e.g., “Il mit la main à cet ouvrage, dès qu’il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726”). No mention of François being in Bordeaux or any activity there within that timeframe appears. Therefore there is no explicit evidence satisfying the requirement for presence at the specified location within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_francois_premier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François premier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “François premier” was king of France (“sous le regne duquel les Sciences commencerent à fleurir”). Being a reigning monarch, François premier was physically present in France during his rule (1547‑1560). This directly indicates his presence at the location before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is explicit evidence that he was in France.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage references François I’s reign and notes that scientific progress began under his rule, but it contains no explicit mention of him being physically present in France during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1797). The text only alludes to his historical presence; there is no evidence of a specific visit or activity in France within the required timeframe. Therefore we cannot confirm that François I was present at the specified location and date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q502162_nicolas_sanson", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q502162", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Nicolas Sanson d' Abbeville", "Nicolas Sanson" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q1249603_picardie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1249603", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Picardie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Nicolas Sanson d’ Abbeville “né en 1600 d’ une famille distinguée de la Picardie.” The phrase indicates his birthplace is the Picardie region. Being born in a place means he was physically present there at the time of his birth, which is certainly before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore there is explicit evidence that Nicolas Sanson d’ Abbeville was present in Picardie prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document provides only a biographical note stating that Nicolas Sanson d’ Abbeville was born in 1600 from a distinguished family of Picardy. It does not contain any mention of him being physically present in the region during the period leading up to the publication date (the 30‑day window ending on 28 September 1797). The text discusses his works and lineage, but there is no explicit statement that he was in Picardy within that timeframe. Therefore, we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_francois_premier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François premier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text identifies François first as a historical figure who reigned over France and notes that “les Sciences commencerent à fleurir” during his reign. Since France is part of Europe, the statement implies that François first was physically present in Europe (specifically in France) before 1797. The passage does not require any explicit mention of a visit to a particular European city; merely being king of France places him within the continent. Therefore there is evidence that he was at the location “Europe” prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the history of French geography and mentions “François premier” only as a historical figure whose reign preceded the described scientific progress. It does not contain any explicit statement that François premier was physically present in Europe, nor does it provide a date or event linking him to a location within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_nicolas", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Nicolas" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q1249603_picardie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1249603", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Picardie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Nicolas Sanson d’ Abbeville, né en 1600 d' une famille distinguée de la Picardie.” This indicates his family’s origin was in the region of Picardy, but it does not state that Nicolas himself ever visited or resided there. The text provides no mention of travel, residence, or any activity by Nicolas in Picardy before 1797. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that he was physically present at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text identifies Nicolas Sanson d’ Abbeville as a member of the Picardie‑originated family, but it does not provide any explicit statement that he was physically present in Picardie during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1797). The only dates mentioned are unrelated to his presence (e.g., “en 1726”, “en 1740”). Since there is no evidence of Nicolas being in Picardie within that timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_joseph", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M. Joseph" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q656_petersbourg", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q656", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Petersbourg" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “M. Joseph Delisle … Il mit la main à cet ouvrage, dès qu’ il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726.” This explicitly records his presence in Petersbourg at the time of 1726, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is direct evidence that M. Joseph was physically present at Petersbourg prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document states that “Il mit la main à cet ouvrage, dès qu’ il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726.” This indicates M. Joseph was in Petersbourg only in 1726, which is more than a century before the publication date of 1797. No other part of the text mentions him being present at Petersbourg within the 30‑day window preceding 1797 (i.e., between August 28 and September 28 1797). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that M. Joseph was physically present in Petersbourg during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_adrien", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Adrien" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q1249603_picardie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1249603", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Picardie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the family of Nicolas Sanson and his sons (Nicolas, Guillaume & **Adrien**). It notes that Nicolas was born in the Picardie region (“né en 1600 d’ une famille distinguée de la Picardie”), but it provides no mention of Adrien’s residence or any visit to Picardie. The only reference to a location is tied to Nicolas himself; there is no evidence linking Adrien to Picardie before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore, based on the text alone, we cannot confirm that Adrien was physically present in Picardie prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Adrien” only in the context of being one of Nicolas Sanson’s sons, with no reference to any event, place, or date involving him. The text does not state that Adrien was physically present in Picardie, nor does it provide a temporal marker (e.g., a year or month) within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1797. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the specified location during the required timeframe, we cannot confirm that he was physically present there.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_delisle", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Delisle" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q656_petersbourg", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q656", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Petersbourg" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Il mit la main à cet ouvrage, dès qu’ il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726.” This indicates that M. Joseph Delisle was physically present in Petersbourg at the time of his arrival in 1726, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is explicit evidence that he was indeed in Petersbourg prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text states that “Il mit la main à cet ouvrage, dès qu’ il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726.” This indicates Delisle’s arrival in Petersbourg occurred in 1726, which is more than a century before the document’s publication date of 1797. There are no other references to Delisle being present in Petersbourg within the 30‑day window preceding 1797 (i.e., between August 17, 1796 and September 17, 1797). Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that Delisle was physically present at Petersbourg during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_guillaume", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Guillaume" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q1249603_picardie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1249603", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Picardie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Nicolas Sanson was “né en 1600 d' une famille distinguée de la Picardie” and that his sons included “Nicolas, Guillaume & Adrien.” This indicates that Guillaume is a member of the Picardian family lineage, implying he lived in or was born in Picardie before the document’s publication date (1797). Thus there is explicit evidence that Guillaume was physically present in Picardie prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains a genealogical reference to “Nicolas Sanson d’ Abbeville, né en 1600 d’une famille distinguée de la Picardie” and notes that his sons were Nicolas, Guillaume & Adrien. However, the text provides no explicit statement that Guillaume himself was physically present in Picardie during any period close to the publication date (the window is roughly August 28 – September 1796 to September 28 1797). The only mention of Guillaume is as a child of Nicolas Sanson, not as an individual who visited or resided there. Consequently, there is no evidence in the text that Guillaume was present at Picardie within the required 30‑day window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_pierre_moulard_sanson", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pierre Moulard Sanson" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q1249603_picardie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1249603", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Picardie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that Nicolas Sanson was born in the Picardie and that Pierre Moulard Sanson “entra aussi dans les vûes de son ayeul,” meaning he entered his father’s world of study, but it does not state that Pierre himself ever visited or resided in Picardie. The only mention of Picardie is tied to Nicolas’s origin, not to Pierre’s presence there. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Pierre Moulard Sanson was physically present in the Picardie before the document’s publication date (1797).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains no explicit statement that Pierre Moulard Sanson was physically present in the region of Picardie during the month preceding the publication date (1797). It only notes his familial relationship to Nicolas Sanson and mentions that Nicolas was born in a distinguished family from Picardie. No dates, events, or location references tied to Pierre’s presence are provided within the required 30‑day window. Consequently, there is no evidence supporting the claim of his presence at Picardie before the document’s publication.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_francois_premier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François premier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q1479_bourdeaux", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1479", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourdeaux" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies François de la Guillotière as “natif de Bourdeaux,” which indicates that he was born and lived in Bordeaux at some point before the document’s publication date of 1797. Moreover, it notes that his reign ended long before 1797 (he died in 1547), confirming his presence in Bordeaux during his lifetime. Thus there is explicit textual evidence that François premier was physically present in Bordeaux prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses geographic works and mentions several historical figures (e.g., François de la Guillotiere, Nicolas Sanson). It does not contain any reference to “François premier” being present at Bordeaux or any date that would place him there within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1797. Since no explicit statement links François premier to Bordeaux during that period, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q502162_nicolas_sanson", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q502162", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Nicolas Sanson d' Abbeville", "Nicolas Sanson" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q1479_bourdeaux", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1479", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourdeaux" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses several individuals and their activities, but it only identifies Nicolas Sanson d’ Abbeville as a French cartographer born in 1600 from a Picardie family. It does not mention any travel or residence of his in Bordeaux; the only reference to Bordeaux is to François de la Guillotiere, who is described as being native there. Since the text provides no evidence that Nicolas Sanson ever visited or lived in Bordeaux before its publication date (1797), we conclude that he was not physically present at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Nicolas Sanson d’ Abbeville’s birth year and his scholarly contributions, but it contains no statement that he was physically present in Bordeaux. The only reference to Bordeaux is a separate sentence about François de la Guillotiere, who is described as being native of Bourdeaux. There are no dates or events linking Nicolas Sanson to Bordeaux within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1797). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that he was in Bordeaux during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_delisle", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Delisle" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “M. Joseph Delisle … il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726,” indicating he was physically present in St Petersburg (Russia) at that time. No part of the text mentions him being in France or any other French location before the document’s publication date (1797). Since there is no evidence of his presence in France, we cannot conclude that he was there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text discusses M. Joseph Delisle’s work on an atlas, noting that he was “arrived à Petersbourg en 1726.” This event is in Russia and occurs far earlier than the required window (the 30‑day period ending on the publication date of 1797). The text contains no mention of Delisle being in France or any activity there within that timeframe. Therefore, there is no explicit evidence that he was present in France during the specified period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_francois_de_la_guillotiere", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François de la Guillotiere" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “François de la Guillotiere natif de Bourdeaux” (François de la Guillotiere, native of Bordeaux). Being “natif” indicates he was born in or lived in Bordeaux, which is a city in France. This implies his physical presence in France before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is explicit evidence that François de la Guillotiere was present in France prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text identifies François de la Guillotiere as a native of Bordeaux who published a map in 1584, but it contains no mention of him being physically present in France during the period leading up to the document’s publication date (1797). There are no dates or location references linking his presence to that timeframe. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to confirm his presence in France within the required 30‑day window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_francois_premier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François premier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q656_petersbourg", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q656", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Petersbourg" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document discusses the publication of an atlas and mentions that M. Joseph Delisle was in Petersbourg in 1726, but it does not state or imply that François first ever visited Petersbourg. The only reference to François first is a historical remark about his reign and the development of science in France; there is no mention of him traveling to or being present at Petersbourg before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore, there is no textual evidence supporting that François first was physically present in Petersbourg prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “François premier” only in the sentence about French scientific progress, with no accompanying location or date. The only mention of Petersbourg is tied to an event dated 1726 (“Il mit la main à cet ouvrage, dès qu’ il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726”), which falls far outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (August 4 – September 3 1797). There is no evidence that François premier was physically present in Petersbourg during that period. Therefore, the required criteria are not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv-NIL_joseph", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M. Joseph" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3474.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Il mit la main à cet ouvrage, dès qu’ il fut arrivé à Petersbourg en 1726.” This indicates that M. Joseph was physically present in Petersburg (a city in Russia) at some point before the document’s publication date of 1797. Since Petersburg is located within Europe, this confirms his presence in Europe prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses an atlas and mentions “M. Joseph Delisle” as a person who worked on the work, but it only notes his arrival in Petersbourg in 1726. No reference to M. Joseph being in Europe (or any specific location) within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1797 is present. The text contains no dates or events that place him in Europe during August–September 1796, so there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the required time and place.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk205", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " L' empereur soûtenait, non sans raison, que les états de Matilde lui devaient revenir comme un fief de l' empire ; ainsi les papes combattaient pour le spirituel et pour le temporel. Pascal II n' obtint du roi Philippe que la permission de tenir un concile à Troye. Le gouvernement était trop faible, trop divisé pour lui donner des troupes. Henri V ayant terminé par des traités une guerre de peu de durée contre la Pologne, sut tellement intéresser les princes de l' empire à soûtenir ses droits, que ces mêmes princes qui avaient aidé à détroner son pére en vertu des bulles des papes, se réunirent avec lui pour faire annuller dans Rome ces mêmes bulles. Il descend donc des Alpes avec une armée ; et Rome fut encor teinte de sang pour cette querelle de la crosse et de l' anneau. Les traités, les parjures, les excommunications et les meurtres se suivirent avec rapidité. Pascal II ayant solemnellement rendu les investitures avec serment sur l' évangile, fit annuller son serment par es cardinaux ; nouvelle manière de manquer à sa parole. Il se laissa traiter de lâche et de prévaricateur en plein concile, afin d' être forcé à reprendre ce qu' il avait donné. Alors nouvelle irruption de l' empereur à Rome ; car presque jamais ces Césars n' y allèrent que pour des querelles ecclésiastiques, dont la plus grande était le couronnement. Enfin après avoir créé, déposé, chassé, rapellé des papes, Henri V aussi souvent excommunié que son pére, et inquiété comme lui par ses grands vassaux d' Allemagne, fut obligé de terminer la guerre des investitures, en renonçant à cette crosse et à cet anneau. Il fit plus ; il se désista solemnellement du droit que s' étaient attribué les empereurs, ainsi que les rois de France, de nommer aux évêchés, ou d' interposer tellement leur autorité dans les élections, qu' ils en étaient absolument les maîtres. Il fut donc décidé dans un concile tenu à Rome, que les rois ne donneraient plus aux bénéficiers canoniquement élus les investitures par un bâton recourbé, mais par une baguette. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_cesars", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Césars" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the Emperors (“Césars”) only in a generic sense, noting that they rarely visited Rome except for ecclesiastical disputes and coronations. It does not name any specific individual named “Césars” or provide a concrete instance of such a visit before 1756. Therefore there is no direct evidence that the person referred to was physically present in Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical events and mentions “ces Césars” (the Emperors) only in a general sense: it notes that they rarely visited Rome for ecclesiastical disputes, implying they did not physically appear there. The text does not provide any explicit statement or date indicating that a Caesar was present in Rome within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1756. Therefore, there is no evidence to confirm the presence of “Césars” in Rome during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q36_pologne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q36", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pologne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Henri V ayant terminé par des traités une guerre de peu de durée contre la Pologne…”. This indicates that Henri V was physically present in Poland to negotiate and fight, i.e., he was there before the document’s publication date of 1756. No part of the text contradicts this claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Henri V having concluded treaties a short war against Poland,” indicating a diplomatic or military engagement with Poland, but it does not provide any explicit statement of Henri’s physical presence in Poland during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (14 Jan – 15 Feb 1756). No date or location cue within that timeframe is attached to Henri. Therefore there is no evidence that he was present in Poland within the required period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_pascal", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pascal II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q211953_troye", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q211953", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Troye" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Pascal II n' obtint du roi Philippe que la permission de tenir un concile à Troye.” The phrase “tenir un concile” (to hold a council) implies that Pascal II was physically present in Troy to convene the meeting, as only someone who is there can preside over it. This indicates his presence at Troye prior to the document’s publication date of 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Pascal II n’ obtint du roi Philippe que la permission de tenir un concile à Troye.” This indicates he obtained the right to hold a council there, but it does not provide any explicit evidence that he was physically present at Troy within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). No dates or contextual cues linking Pascal II’s presence in Troy to that specific timeframe appear. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence in the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q211953_troye", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q211953", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Troye" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Pascal II’s attempt to hold a concile at Troye, noting that he obtained permission from King Philip. It then moves on to describe Henri V’s actions elsewhere (treaties with Poland, wars, excommunications), but it contains no mention of Henri V being physically present in or visiting Troye. The only reference to the location “Troye” is tied to Pascal II, not to Henri V. Since there is no textual evidence that Henri V was at Troye before the document’s publication date (1756), we conclude that his presence cannot be inferred from the text.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Pascal II’s permission to hold a concile at Troye and later mentions Henri V’s diplomatic activities, but it contains no explicit statement that Henri V himself was present in Troye within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The text provides only historical context without dates or direct evidence of Henri V’s presence at that location during the required timeframe. Therefore there is no basis to conclude his physical presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roi Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q211953_troye", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q211953", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Troye" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Pascal II n’ obtint du roi Philippe que la permission de tenir un concile à Troye.” This indicates that Pascal received a written permission from the king, but it does not mention any physical presence of Philippe at Troye. The text provides no evidence that Philippe himself attended or was in Troye; it merely records an administrative act (granting permission). Since there is no explicit reference to Philippe’s presence before 1756, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Pascal II n’ obtint du roi Philippe que la permission de tenir un concile à Troye.” This indicates that Philippe granted permission for a council to be held in Troy, implying his presence there at some point. However, the text provides no explicit date or temporal marker associated with this event, nor does it specify that the occurrence falls within 30 days before the document’s publication date (1756). Without a clear temporal reference linking Philippe’s presence to Troye in the required window, we cannot confirm his physical presence there during the specified period. Therefore the evidence is insufficient for a positive classification.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that Henri V was “inqueté comme lui par ses grands vassaux d’ Allemagne,” which indicates a political relationship with German vassals but does not state that Henri himself visited or was physically present in Germany. No other part of the text mentions his presence there, nor any event indicating a trip to the region before 1756. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Henri V was at Germany prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri V’s diplomatic and military activities, noting that he had vassals in Germany and was “inquited” by them, but it does not state that Henri himself was physically present in Germany. The text contains no explicit mention of a visit, meeting, or stay in the region within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Moreover, the document’s own temporal references are to earlier medieval events and do not align with the required timeframe. Consequently, there is no direct evidence that Henri V was present in Germany during the specified period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_matilde", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Matilde" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q211953_troye", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q211953", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Troye" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions Pascal II obtaining permission from King Philip to hold a council in Troy, but it does not state or imply that Matilde herself attended the council or was present in Troy. The only reference to Matilde is an earlier comment about her territories being considered imperial fiefs, which provides no location data. Since there is no textual evidence linking Matilde to Troy before 1756, we conclude that she was not physically present at that place.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Pascal II’s permission to hold a concile in Troy, but it does not mention Matilde at all. There is no sentence or clause that places Matilde in Troy or any other location near the time of publication (1756). The text also lacks any explicit date within the 30‑day window preceding 1756, so there is no evidence that Matilde was physically present in Troy during that period. Therefore the claim cannot be supported by the document.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roi Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q36_pologne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q36", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pologne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Pascal II’s relationship with the French king, noting that Pascal obtained permission from “roi Philippe” to hold a concile in Troye. It also mentions Henri V’s wars against Poland and the resulting treaties, but it does not state or imply any involvement of king Philippe in those conflicts or any presence in Poland. No sentence links Philippe to Poland, nor does the text provide dates or events that would place him there before 1756. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting his physical presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri V’s treaties and a brief war with Poland, but it contains no statement that “roi Philippe” was in Poland or any other location during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to Philippe is elsewhere in the text (“le roi Philippe”) concerning a concile at Troye, not in connection with Poland. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence in Poland within the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_cesars", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Césars" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the behavior of “Césars” (the emperors) regarding their visits to Rome for ecclesiastical disputes, noting that they rarely went there except for such matters. It contains no mention of any of these emperors traveling or being present in Germany (“Allemagne”). Since the text provides no evidence of a Caesar’s presence in Germany before 1756, we conclude that the claim is unsupported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses events concerning emperors and papal matters, but it contains no mention of the person “Césars” being present in “Allemagne”. The only reference to “Césars” is a statement about their visits to Rome for ecclesiastical disputes, with no associated date or location. Since there is no explicit evidence that the person was physically present at Allemagne within 30 days before the publication date (1756), we cannot confirm presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Il fut donc décidé dans un concile tenu à Rome,” indicating that Henri V was present at a papal concilium held in Rome. This event occurred centuries before the document’s publication date of 1756, providing direct evidence of his physical presence there. The text also mentions him descending from the Alps with an army and being in Rome during a conflict, further confirming his presence. Therefore, Henri V was indeed present in Rome prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions Henri V’s presence at a conclave (“en plein concile”) and his descent from the Alps, but it provides no date or temporal marker that places this event within 30 days before the document’s publication in 1756. The text is about medieval events (Henri V died in 1422), so any reference to Rome is centuries earlier than the required window. Consequently there is no explicit evidence that Henri V was physically present in Rome during the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_pascal", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pascal II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q1286_alpes", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1286", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Alpes" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the sentence “Il descend donc des Alpes avec une armée ; et Rome fut encor teinte de sang …”. This statement explicitly indicates that Pascal II physically descended from the Alps, i.e., he was present there at some point before the document’s publication date (1756). No contradictory evidence is presented. Therefore we can conclude that Pascal II was indeed in the Alps prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Il descend donc des Alpes avec une armée,” indicating Pascal II’s movement from the Alps, but it provides no date or time reference for this event. The document’s publication date is 1756, and the required window is the 30‑day period ending on that date (i.e., between 24 September 1755 and 24 September 1756). Because the text lacks any explicit temporal marker linking Pascal II’s presence in the Alps to this window, there is no evidence that he was physically present at the specified location within the required timeframe. Consequently, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri V" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q1286_alpes", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1286", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Alpes" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Il descend donc des Alpes avec une armée ; et Rome fut encor teinte de sang…”. This sentence indicates that Henri V physically descended from the Alps while leading an army, implying his presence in the Alpine region at some point prior to the document’s publication date (1756). The text does not provide a specific year, but it clearly describes an event involving him in the Alps. Therefore there is direct evidence of his presence at that location before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text states “Il descend donc des Alpes avec une armée,” indicating Henri V was physically present at the Alps, but it provides no explicit date or temporal marker that places this event within 30 days before the document’s publication (1756). Without a specific date in the passage, we cannot confirm that his presence at the Alps falls inside the required window. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the strict criteria for presence detection.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_pascal", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pascal II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q36_pologne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q36", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pologne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Pascal II’s actions and the conflict with Poland, but it does not state that he himself was in Poland or visited the country. The only reference to Poland concerns Henri V’s treaty negotiations, while Pascal II is described as descending from the Alps and engaging in Roman affairs. No evidence of his physical presence in Poland before 1756 appears in the text.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Pascal II’s actions regarding a concile in Troy, but it contains no explicit statement that he was physically present in Poland during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to Poland is a mention of Henri V’s war against Poland, which does not implicate Pascal. Since there is no direct evidence of Pascal’s presence in Poland within the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_pascal", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pascal II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Il fut donc décidé dans un concile tenu à Rome,” indicating that Pascal II attended a council held in Rome. The text also notes his presence elsewhere (“Il descend donc des Alpes avec une armée”) but the mention of the Roman concile confirms his physical presence there at some point before the document’s publication date (1756). Since the document itself is dated 1756, any event described as occurring in the past must have taken place prior to that year. Therefore Pascal II was indeed physically present in Rome before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "Prediction(\n reasoning=None,\n classification=None\n)", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roi Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Pascal II n’ obtint du roi Philippe que la permission de tenir un concile à Troye.” This indicates that Philippe was in Troy to grant the permission, not in Rome. The rest of the text discusses Pascal’s activities and events in Rome, but does not mention Philippe being present there. No other sentence or clause links Philippe with a presence in Rome before 1756. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting the claim that king Philippe was physically in Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Pascal II’s relationship with “roi Philippe” and notes that the king granted permission for a concile to be held at **Troye**, not Rome. No sentence in the text indicates that roi Philippe himself was present in Rome, nor does it provide any date or time reference near 1756 that would place him there within the required 30‑day window. The only mention of Rome is about events involving Pascal II and Henri V, not about roi Philippe’s presence. Therefore there is no explicit evidence in the document that roi Philippe was physically present in Rome during the period immediately preceding the publication date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv-NIL_matilde", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Matilde" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk205.tsv_Q36_pologne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q36", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pologne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri V’s diplomatic and military actions against Poland, noting that he concluded treaties after a brief conflict. It does not mention Matilde at all in relation to Poland or any travel there. The only reference to Matilde concerns the emperor’s concern over her state as a fief, with no indication of her presence in Poland. Since the text provides no evidence that Matilde was physically present in Poland before 1756, we cannot assert such a claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri V’s treaties and a brief war with Poland, but it contains no reference to the person “Matilde” being in Poland or any temporal marker that would place her there within 30 days before the document’s publication date (1756). The text is dated far earlier than 1756 and does not provide evidence of Matilde’s presence at that location. Therefore, there is no explicit indication that she was physically present in Poland during the required time window.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk689", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l' inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis. Le gardien des cordeliers de Paris, et le provincial des dominicains, étaient les grands inquisiteurs. Ils devaient, par la bulle d' Alexandre, consulter les évêques, mais ils n' en dépendaient pas. Cette étrange jurisdiction donnée à des hommes qui font voeu de renoncer au monde, indigna le clergé et les laïcs. Un cordelier inquisiteur assista au jugement des templiers ; mais bientôt le soulévement de tous les esprits ne laissa à ces moines qu' un titre inutile. En Italie les papes avaient plus de crédit, parce que tout désobéis qu' ils étaient dans Rome, tout éloignés qu' ils en furent longtems, ils étaient toujours à la tête de la faction guelphe, contre celle des gibelins. Ils se servirent de cette inquisition contre les partisans de l' empire. Car en 1302 le pape Jean XXII fit procéder par des moines inquisiteurs contre Matthieu Visconti seigneur de Milan, dont le crime était d' être attaché à l' empereur Louis De Baviére. Le dévouement du vassal à son suzerain, fut déclaré hérésie ; la maison d' est, celle de Malatesta, furent traitées de même, pour la même cause ; et si le suplice ne suivit pas la sentence, c' est qu' il était alors plus aisé aux papes d' avoir des inquisiteurs que des armées. Plus ce tribunal s' établit, et plus les évêques qui se voyaient enlever un droit qui semblait leur apartenir, le reclamèrent vivement. Les papes les associèrent aux moines inquisiteurs, qui exerçaient pleinement leur autorité dans presque tous les états d' Italie, et dont les évêques ne furent que les assesseurs. Sur la fin du treiziéme siécle en 1289 Venise avait déja reçu l' inquisition ; mais si ailleurs elle était toute dépendante du pape, elle fut dans l' état vénitien soumise au sénat. La plus sage précaution qu' il prit, fut que les amendes et les confiscations n' apartinssent pas aux inquisiteurs. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_alexandre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "pape Alexandre III" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document explicitly states: “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” This indicates that Pope Alexandre III was physically present in France to establish the Inquisition, which occurred well before the publication date of 1756. Therefore there is direct evidence of his presence at the specified location prior to the document’s date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document states that “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” This sentence records a historical act from the year 1255, which is more than three centuries before the publication date of 1756. The text contains no mention of Pope Alexandre III being physically present in France during any period within the 30‑day window preceding 1756 (i.e., between September 14, 1755 and September 14, 1756). Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at that location within the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q346_s._louis", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q346", "pers_mentions_list": [ "S. Louis", "roi" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” The phrase “sous le roi S. Louis” indicates the Inquisition was instituted during his reign, which implies he was the monarch of France at that time. Historically, French kings were based in Paris (the royal court), so it is reasonable to infer that King S. Louis was physically present in Paris before 1756. The text does not provide any contradictory evidence; therefore we can conclude that his presence in Paris is supported by the document.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "Prediction(\n reasoning=None,\n classification=None\n)", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_alexandre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "pape Alexandre III" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l' inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” Establishing an institution within a country requires the Pope’s physical presence there to sign or authorize it. The text does not merely mention his authority; it records an action taken by him in France, implying he was present in Paris (the capital of France at that time). Since this event occurred long before 1756, it satisfies the condition that the person was physically present at the specified location prior to the document’s publication date. Therefore there is direct evidence supporting his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Pope Alexandre III’s activities in the mid‑13th century (e.g., “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’inquisition en France”). It contains no reference to him being physically present in Paris, nor does it provide any date or event that falls within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1756. Because there is no explicit evidence of his presence at Paris during that period, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q346_s._louis", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q346", "pers_mentions_list": [ "S. Louis", "roi" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage begins with “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” The phrase “sous le roi S. Louis” indicates that the Inquisition was instituted during his reign, which implies he was physically present and governing France at that time. Since this event occurred well before the document’s publication date of 1756, it provides direct evidence that King S. Louis was indeed in France (as king) prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” This indicates that S. Louis was king of France at the time of the 1255 event, but it provides no information about his presence or activities in France near the publication date (1756). The text contains no mention of a specific date, location, or event linking him to France within the 30‑day window preceding 1756. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that he was physically present at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q23873_jean", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q23873", "pers_mentions_list": [ "pape Jean XXII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “En Italie les papes avaient plus de crédit, parce que tout désobéis qu’ ils étaient dans Rome…”. This indicates that papal authority was exercised from Rome when the Pope was physically present there. The text then specifically refers to an action taken by “le pape Jean XXII” in 1302: he “fit procéder par des moines inquisiteurs contre Matthieu Visconti seigneur de Milan.” Performing a papal procedure requires the Pope’s physical presence at the seat of the papacy, Rome. Therefore, the document provides explicit evidence that Pope Jean XXII was physically present in Rome before the publication date (1756).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text references Pope Jean XXII only in the context of an event dated “en 1302” (i.e., 1302). The document’s publication date is 1756, so the relevant time window for presence would be roughly from early 1756 to mid‑1756. No part of the text mentions Pope Jean XXII being in Rome during that period; it merely notes his actions in 1302 and does not provide any evidence of a later presence. Therefore there is no explicit indication that he was physically present at Rome within the required 30‑day window before the document’s publication.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q23873_jean", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q23873", "pers_mentions_list": [ "pape Jean XXII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “En Italie les papes avaient plus de crédit, parce que tout désobéis qu’ ils étaient dans Rome…” This indicates the Pope was physically in Italy (Rome) at some point before 1756. Moreover, it specifically mentions that “En 1302 le pape Jean XXII fit procéder par des moines inquisiteurs contre Matthieu Visconti seigneur de Milan,” which places him in Italy during that year. Both references confirm his presence in Italy prior to the document’s publication date of 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses papal actions and mentions “En 1302 le pape Jean XXII fit procéder…” which refers to an event in the 14th century. The text contains no reference to Pope Jean XXII being physically present in Italy near the publication date of 1756, nor any dates within a month before that year. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence in Italy during the required time window, we cannot confirm it.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_matthieu_visconti", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Matthieu Visconti seigneur de Milan" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that Pope John XXII “fit procéder” against Matthieu Visconti, a Milanese lord, by monks inquisitors. It does not state that he was physically present in Rome; it merely records the papal action taken against him. The only mention of Rome is about papal presence there, not about Visconti’s location. Since no text indicates that Matthieu Visconti ever visited or resided in Rome before 1756, there is no evidence supporting his physical presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses events from the mid‑13th century (e.g., “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III…”, “En 1302 le pape Jean XXII fit procéder contre Matthieu Visconti”). It mentions Matthieu Visconti only as a target of papal inquisitions, with no reference to Rome or any date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Since there is no explicit statement that he was physically present in Rome during that period, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_matthieu_visconti", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Matthieu Visconti seigneur de Milan" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “le crime était d’ être attaché à l' empereur Louis De Baviére,” indicating that Matthieu Visconti was a lord of Milan, an Italian city. This directly places him in Italy before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is explicit evidence of his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses historical events concerning Matthieu Visconti, but all references are to the 13th‑century period (e.g., “En 1302 le pape Jean XXII fit procéder…”). The publication date is 1756, so the relevant window for presence is from roughly 14 May 1756 to 17 June 1756. No part of the text mentions Matthieu Visconti being in Italy or any activity there during that timeframe; it only notes his earlier involvement in a papal inquisition. Therefore, there is no evidence that he was physically present in Italy within the required 30‑day window before the document’s publication.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_louis_de_baviere", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "empereur Louis De Baviére" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Matthieu Visconti, seigneur de Milan, … était attaché à l’empereur Louis De Baviére.” This indicates that the emperor had a vassal in Italy, but it does not state that the emperor himself was physically present there. The text only mentions his loyalty or allegiance; there is no mention of him traveling to or residing in Italy before 1756. Therefore, based on the provided document, there is no evidence that Louis De Baviére was in Italy prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses papal inquisitions and mentions “l’empereur Louis De Baviére” only as a person whose vassal was accused, with no indication that the emperor himself was physically present in Italy or at any specific time. The reference is dated to 1302, far earlier than the publication date of 1756, and there are no temporal markers within the 30‑day window preceding 1756 (i.e., between 1755‑09‑14 and 1756‑09‑14). Since the text provides no evidence that Louis De Baviére was in Italy during that period, the required presence cannot be confirmed. Therefore the classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_louis_de_baviere", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "empereur Louis De Baviére" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a papal inquisition and mentions that “le crime était d’ être attaché à l' empereur Louis De Baviére.” This indicates the emperor’s allegiance but provides no information about his physical presence or any visit to Rome. The text contains no dates, locations, or events linking the emperor to Rome before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence that he was physically present in Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the papal Inquisition and mentions “l’empereur Louis De Baviére” only as a reference to a political relationship (the emperor’s attachment to Milan). It does not state that this emperor was physically present in Rome, nor does it provide any date or event linking his presence to Rome within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1756. The text is dated to 1289 and concerns events long before the relevant timeframe. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Louis De Baviére was in Rome during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_alexandre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "pape Alexandre III" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Pope Alexandre III’s actions, specifically that “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” This sentence indicates the papal activity was centered on France, not Italy. The text later mentions “En Italie les papes avaient plus de crédit…” but refers to other popes and does not state that Pope Alexandre III himself was physically present there. There is no mention of a visit, residence, or any event in Italy involving him before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore, the text provides no evidence that he was in Italy prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses historical events and does not contain any statement indicating that Pope Alexandre III was physically present in Italy during the period leading up to the publication date (1756). The only reference to him is his 1255 action establishing an Inquisition in France, which is unrelated to Italy or the required time window. Since there is no explicit mention of his presence in Italy within roughly one month before 1756, we cannot confirm that he was physically present at that location during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_malatesta", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Malatesta" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the papal Inquisition and mentions the Malatesta family as a target of the tribunal, stating “la maison d' est, celle de Malatesta, furent traitées de même”. It does not provide any indication that the Malatesta family was physically present in Rome or that they visited the city. The text only references their legal status and the actions taken against them; there is no mention of travel, residence, or presence in Rome before 1756. Consequently, there is no evidence supporting the claim that Malatesta was at Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses papal inquisitions and historical figures such as Pope Alexandre III, Pope Jean XXII, and the Malatesta family. It mentions “la maison d’ est, celle de Malatesta” but does not state that Malatesta himself was present in Rome or any location at all. The only dates in the text are from 1289 and 1302, far earlier than the publication date of 1756. Since there is no explicit mention of Malatesta being in Rome within a month before 1756, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q346_s._louis", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q346", "pers_mentions_list": [ "S. Louis", "roi" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that in 1255 Pope Alexander III established an inquisition “en France sous le roi S. Louis.” This indicates the papacy acted under the king’s authority, but it does not describe any physical presence of King Louis in Italy or any travel to that region. The text only mentions his rule and the papal jurisdiction; there is no mention of him being in Italy, attending events there, or traveling there before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that S. Louis was physically present in Italy prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the papacy and the Inquisition in Italy during the mid‑13th century, mentioning “le roi S. Louis” only as a title without any indication that he was physically present there or at any specific time near 1756. There is no sentence linking his presence to Italy within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (i.e., between 1755‑09‑28 and 1756‑09‑28). Consequently, the text provides no explicit evidence that S. Louis was in Italy during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_malatesta", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Malatesta" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q641_venise", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q641", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Venise" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the Inquisition’s presence in various places, including Venice, but it does not state or imply that the Malatesta family or any individual named “Malatesta” was physically present there. The only reference to Malatesta is a mention of his house being treated similarly to other houses, which merely indicates legal treatment rather than physical location. No sentence in the text links Malatesta’s presence with Venice before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence supporting that he was in Venice prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the Inquisition’s history in various Italian cities, including a reference to Venice receiving the Inquisition in 1289. However, it does not mention any individual named “Malatesta” being present in or visiting Venice during that period. The only appearance of Malatesta is as part of a phrase about houses (“la maison d’ est, celle de Malatesta”), which refers to property ownership rather than personal presence. Since the text contains no explicit statement that Malatesta was physically in Venice within 30 days before the publication date (1756), there is no evidence supporting his presence at that location during the required time window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv-NIL_alexandre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "pape Alexandre III" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” It describes his role and the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, but it does not mention any visit to Rome or any physical presence there. The only reference to Rome is a general comment about papal activity in Italy (“En Italie les papes avaient plus de crédit…”) which applies to all popes, not specifically to Alexandre III. Since the text provides no explicit evidence that Pope Alexandre III was physically present in Rome before 1756, we cannot confirm his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text discusses Pope Alexandre III’s actions in the mid‑13th century (e.g., “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France”). It contains no reference to him being physically present in Rome, nor any date that falls within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1756. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the specified location during the required timeframe, we cannot confirm it.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q346_s._louis", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q346", "pers_mentions_list": [ "S. Louis", "roi" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk689.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “En 1255 le pape Alexandre III établit l’ inquisition en France sous le roi S. Louis.” This indicates that the papacy’s action was carried out during King S. Louis’s reign, but it does not mention any physical presence of the king in Rome or any event placing him there. The text only refers to his rule and the papal decision; it contains no reference to a visit, residence, or activity in Rome before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence that S. Louis was physically present in Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses papal activities and mentions “le roi S. Louis” only in a historical context (the year 1255). It contains no explicit statement that the king was physically present in Rome, nor does it provide any date or event linking him to Rome within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1756. The text’s temporal references are unrelated to the required timeframe and location, so there is no evidence that S. Louis was in Rome during that period.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Perouse Voyage chunk227", "time_period": "1797", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1797", "language": "fr", "text": " D' après le rapport de M De Vaujuas et de M Boutin, il était évident que nous ne pouvions trouver à la Trinité l' eau et le bois qui nous manquaient. Je me décidai tout de suite à faire route pour l' île Sainte - Catherine, sur la côte du Brésil : c' était l' ancienne relâche des bâtimens français qui allaient dans la mer du sud. Frézier et l' amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins. Ce fut pour ne pas perdre un seul jour, que je donnai la préférence à l' île Sainte - Catherine sur Rio - Janéïro, où les différentes formalités auraient exigé plus de temps qu' il n' en fallait pour faire l' eau et le bois qui nous manquaient. Mais en dirigeant ma route vers l' île Sainte - Catherine, je voulus m' assurer de l' existence de l' île de l' Ascençaon, que M Daprès place à cent lieues dans l' ouest de la Trinité, et à 15 minutes seulement plus sud. Suivant le journal de M Poncel De La Haye, qui commandait la frégate la renommée, j' étais certain que différens navigateurs, entr' autres Frézier, homme très - éclairé, avaient cru aborder à l' Ascençaon, et qu' ils n' avaient été réellement qu' à la Trinité. Malgré l' autorité de M Poncel De La Haye, je crus que ce point de géographie demandait un nouvel éclaircissement. Les deux jours que nous passâmes vers la partie sud de l' île de la Trinité, nous mirent à portée de faire les relèvemens d' après lesquels M Bernizet traça le plan de la partie sud de l' île : il diffère très - peu de celui du docteur Halley, qui m' avait été remis par M De Fleurieu. La vue, peinte par M Duché De Vancy, est d' une vérité si frappante, qu' elle suffira seule pour que les navigateurs qui aborderont dans la partie du sud de la Trinité, ne puissent jamais se tromper. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_frezier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Frézier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_mer_du_sud", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "mer du sud" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins.” The location “y” refers to the island Sainte‑Catherine, which lies on the coast of Brazil in the South Sea (mer du sud). This indicates that Frézier was physically present at that spot during the voyage. Earlier it notes that several navigators, including Frézier, had believed they were approaching the island Ascençaon but were actually only at the Trinité; this also places him within the same maritime area of the South Sea before 1797. Thus there is explicit textual evidence that Frézier was in the mer du sud prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins” in the context of arriving on the island Sainte‑Catherine, which is described as being on the coast of Brazil. The only reference to “mer du sud” appears earlier as part of a description of an old French wreck that sailed into the South Sea; it does not state that Frezier was physically present at or near the sea. Moreover, no date or explicit timeframe linking Frezier’s presence to the location is provided within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1797). Because the text lacks a direct statement of Frezier being in “mer du sud” during that period, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv_Q3164485_daprès", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q3164485", "pers_mentions_list": [ "M Daprès" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_ile_de_l_ascencaon", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île de l' Ascençaon" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “M Daprès place à cent lieues dans l’ouest de la Trinité,” indicating his location relative to the Trinité but not on the island itself. It also mentions that other navigators, including Frézier, thought they had reached Ascençaon but were actually at the Trinité. No sentence in the text indicates that M Daprès himself was physically present on or visited the island of Ascençaon before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage refers to “M Daprès” only in the context of his position “à cent lieues dans l’ouest de la Trinité,” which is a location near the island of Trinité, not at the island of Ascençaon. The text does not state that M Daprès was physically present on or near the island of Ascençaon during any time period. There are no explicit temporal references (e.g., dates, “dans le mois de …”) linking his presence to the island within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1797. Consequently, there is no evidence in the document that M Daprès was at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_anson", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "l' amiral Anson" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_sainte_catherine", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île Sainte - Catherine" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins.” The pronoun “y” refers to the island Sainte‑Catherine mentioned earlier in the text (“je me décidai tout de suite à faire route pour l’ île Sainte‑Catherine”). This indicates that both Frézier and the Amiral were physically present on the island at the time of the report. Since the document is dated 1797, this presence occurred before its publication date. Therefore there is explicit evidence that the Amiral was in Sainte‑Catherine prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins.” This indicates that the amiral and Frézier were physically present on Île Sainte‑Catherine at some point. However, the text provides no explicit date or temporal marker for this event; it merely reports the presence without linking it to a specific time within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). Because the required evidence of a dated presence is absent, we cannot confirm that the amiral was at the island during the specified period. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv_Q47434_halley", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q47434", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Halley" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_ile_de_la_trinite", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "sud de l' île de la Trinité" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that the narrator received a map from “le docteur Halley” and that this map is similar to one drawn by M Bernizet, but it does not state that Halley himself visited or was physically present at the southern part of Île de la Trinité. The only reference to Halley is his map being handed over; there is no mention of him traveling there or being in the location. Therefore there is no evidence that Halley was physically present at “sud de l’ île de la Trinité” before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that the narrator and his crew spent two days on the southern part of Île de la Trinité, mapping reliefs after which M Bernizet drew a plan. It also states that “le docteur Halley, qui m’ avait été remis par M De Fleurieu,” implying Halley received the plan but does not indicate he was physically present at that location or during the timeframe in question. No sentence explicitly says Halley was there on the southern shore within 30 days before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore, there is no direct evidence of Halley’s presence at “sud de l’ île de la Trinité” meeting the required criteria.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_poncel_de_la_haye", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M Poncel De La Haye" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_trinite", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ouest de la Trinité", "Trinité" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Suivant le journal de M Poncel De La Haye, qui commandait la frégate la renommée…” This indicates that the author is referring to a journal kept by M Poncel De La Haye while he was in command of his ship. The journal discusses navigation around Ascension Island, which lies “ouest de la Trinité.” By mentioning the location and the ship’s operations there, it implies that De La Haye was physically present at or near that area during the time of the report (i.e., before 1797). Therefore, the text provides direct evidence that he was in the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage cites “le journal de M Poncel De La Haye” and notes that the frigate’s commander had been at the Trinité, but it does not state that M Poncel De La Haye himself was physically present at “ouest de la Trinité”. The only mention of the location is as a geographic reference in the text (“à 15 minutes seulement plus sud”), not as an event involving the person. Since there is no explicit evidence that he was there within the 30‑day window before the publication date, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_anson", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "l' amiral Anson" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_mer_du_sud", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "mer du sud" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins.” The word *y* indicates the location of this encounter, which is the island Sainte‑Catherine on the coast of Brazil. This island lies in the South Sea (mer du sud). Therefore the text explicitly reports that the amiral was physically present at the mer du sud before the document’s publication date of 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins” while they were on the island Sainte‑Catherine, which lies on the coast of Brazil. The text does not provide a specific date for this event nor explicitly mention the person being in the South Sea (“mer du sud”). Because there is no explicit evidence that l’ amiral Anson was physically present at the location “mer du sud” within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1797, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_frezier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Frézier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_bresil", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "côte du Brésil" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states explicitly that “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins” on the island Sainte‑Catherine, which lies on the coast of Brazil. This indicates that Frézier was physically present at that location during the voyage described in the report. Since the report itself is dated 1797 (the publication date), the presence of Frézier there must have occurred before that date. Therefore there is direct evidence supporting his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text states that “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins” on the island of Sainte‑Catherine, which lies on the coast of Brazil. This indicates that Frezier was physically present at the coast during the narrative’s timeframe. However, the passage contains no explicit date or temporal marker that places this event within 30 days before the document’s publication date (1797). The only reference to a date is “D’ après le rapport de M De Vaujuas et de M Boutin,” which does not specify a month or year close enough to 1797. Because the required evidence of a specific presence within the 30‑day window is absent, we cannot confirm that Frezier was at the coast during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_poncel_de_la_haye", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M Poncel De La Haye" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_ile_de_l_ascencaon", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île de l' Ascençaon" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage cites “le journal de M Poncel De La Haye” and notes that other navigators believed they had reached the island of Ascençaon, but in fact only reached Trinité. This indicates that the author is referring to a report or observation from his journal, not necessarily that he himself was physically present on Ascençaon. No sentence in the text states that M Poncel De La Haye visited or was at the island; it merely references his journal’s content. Therefore there is no direct evidence of his presence at the specified location before 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage references the journal of M Poncel De La Haye as a source for information about navigation, but it does not state that he himself was physically present on the island of Ascençaon. No sentence in the text indicates his presence at that location within any timeframe, let alone within 30 days before the publication date (1797). Therefore there is no explicit evidence supporting the claim.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_frezier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Frézier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_trinite", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ouest de la Trinité", "Trinité" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Frézier … avait cru aborder à l’ Ascençaon, et qu’ ils n’avaient été réellement qu’à la Trinité.” This indicates that Frézier believed he had reached the island’s western side (the Ascension), but it explicitly states that they were only at the Trinité itself. The text does not provide any explicit statement or evidence that Frézier was physically present in the “ouest de la Trinité” area; it merely describes a mistaken belief and a location of the Ascension relative to the island. Since there is no direct mention of his presence in that specific region, we cannot confirm his physical presence before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Frézier” in the context of being near the island of Sainte‑Catherine and later referring to him as having been “à la Trinité.” It does not explicitly state that he was physically present at the specific area described by the location field (“ouest de la Trinité, Trinité”). The text only indicates his presence at a broader region or island, without confirming the exact western part of the Trinité. Since there is no direct evidence of his presence in that precise location within the required 30‑day window before the publication date (1797), the criteria for a TRUE classification are not met.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_vaujuas", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M De Vaujuas" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_trinite", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ouest de la Trinité", "Trinité" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports on a document written by “M De Vaujuas” and his colleague M Boutin, but it does not state that De Vaujuas himself was physically present at the location described as “ouest de la Trinité.” The only mention of that area is in reference to another person (M Daprès) who placed a point 15 minutes south of the island. The text merely cites De Vaujuas’s report; it does not provide any evidence of his presence at the specified location before the publication date of 1797. Therefore, there is no direct indication that he was physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text mentions “M De Vaujuas” only as an author of a report; it does not state that he was physically present at any location, let alone “ouest de la Trinité, Trinité.” The phrase “ouest de la Trinité” appears in a separate sentence describing the position of M Daprès’s place relative to the island, with no indication that De Vaujuas himself was there. Moreover, no date or time reference is provided near this location within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1797). Therefore there is no explicit evidence in the text confirming his presence at the specified location during the required period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_bernizet", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M Bernizet" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_ile_de_la_trinite", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "sud de l' île de la Trinité" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Les deux jours que nous passâmes vers la partie sud de l’ île de la Trinité, nous mirent à portée de faire les relèvemens d' après lesquels M Bernizet traça le plan de la partie sud de l' île.” This indicates that the narrator and his crew were physically present in the southern part of the island while M Bernizet was there to draw a plan. Since this event occurred before the document’s publication date (1797), it provides direct evidence that M Bernizet was at “sud de l’ île de la Trinité” prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "TRUE", "CORRECT_isAt": false, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states: “Les deux jours que nous passâmes vers la partie sud de l’ île de la Trinité, nous mirent à portée de faire les relèvemens d' après lesquels M Bernizet traça le plan…” This indicates that the narrator and his crew were physically present at the southern part of the island for two days. The subsequent clause “après lesquels M Bernizet traça le plan” implies that M Bernizet was also there to trace a plan, i.e., he was present at the same location during those days. Since the text is dated 1797 and refers to events occurring within the preceding two days, it falls well within the 30‑day window before the publication date. Therefore, M Bernizet’s presence at “sud de l’ île de la Trinité” is explicitly supported by the document.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_ascencaon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Ascençaon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_trinite", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ouest de la Trinité", "Trinité" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “l’ Ascençaon” as a geographic point located west of the Trinité, and notes that several navigators believed they had reached it but were actually only at the Trinité itself. It does not state that the person named “Ascençaon” was physically present there; rather, it describes the location’s existence and the mistaken belief of other travelers. Since no evidence in the text indicates that Ascençaon himself visited or was at that spot before 1797, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the geography of “l’ Ascençaon” as being located west of the Trinité, but it only reports that navigators believed they had approached this point; in fact they were at the Trinité itself. There is no explicit statement that the person or entity named “Ascençaon” was physically present there within a month before the document’s publication date (1797). The text merely provides a location reference, not evidence of presence. Therefore the required criteria are not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv_Q3164485_daprès", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q3164485", "pers_mentions_list": [ "M Daprès" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_sainte_catherine", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île Sainte - Catherine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that “M Daprès place” the island Sainte‑Catherine, indicating that Daprès recorded its location, but it does not state that he himself was physically present there. No other sentence in the text mentions his presence at or near the island before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence of his physical presence at the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “M Daprès” in a context about distances from the island of Trinité, but it does not state that M Daprès himself visited or was present on the island Sainte‑Catherine. The only reference to Sainte‑Catherine is the narrator’s decision to head there; no explicit statement links M Daprès to that location within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore, there is no evidence of M Daprès’ presence at Sainte‑Catherine in the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_boutin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M Boutin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_trinite", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ouest de la Trinité", "Trinité" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports on a joint effort by M De Vaujuas and M Boutin, noting that they could not locate water and wood at Trinité. It later discusses the geography of “ouest de la Trinité” in relation to the island Ascençaon, but it does not state that M Boutin himself visited or was present there. The only mention of Boutin is his participation in a report; no explicit statement indicates he physically went to the specified location before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at “ouest de la Trinité, Trinité” prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text mentions “M De Vaujuas et de M Boutin” as authors or collaborators, but it does not state that M Boutin was physically present at the location “ouest de la Trinité, Trinité.” The only reference to that location appears later in a different sentence concerning an island and its geography. There is no explicit statement linking M Boutin’s presence with that specific place within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1797). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at the required location.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_anson", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "l' amiral Anson" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_bresil", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "côte du Brésil" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins.” The phrase “y” refers to the island Sainte‑Catherine, which is explicitly described as being on the coast of Brazil. Therefore the text indicates that both Frézier and the Amiral were physically present at that coastal location during their voyage. Since this event occurred before the document’s publication date (1797), it satisfies the condition that the person was in the specified location prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Frézier et l’ amiral Anson y trouvèrent abondamment à se pourvoir de tous leurs besoins,” indicating the presence of the Amiral at the island Sainte‑Catherine on the coast of Brazil. However, the text contains no explicit date or temporal reference tied to this event. The only date provided in the document is its publication year (1797). Because there is no evidence that the encounter occurred within the 30‑day window preceding September 30 1797, we cannot confirm that the Amiral was present at the specified location during that period. Therefore the required condition is not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv_Q3164485_daprès", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q3164485", "pers_mentions_list": [ "M Daprès" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk227.tsv-NIL_trinite", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ouest de la Trinité", "Trinité" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “M Daprès place à cent lieues dans l’ouest de la Trinité, et à 15 minutes seulement plus sud.” This is a geographic reference indicating the location of a point or datum placed by M Daprès, not a statement that he himself was physically present at that spot. The text does not contain any description of M Daprès being there, nor any mention of him traveling to or visiting the area. Consequently, there is no evidence in the document that M Daprès was physically present at “ouest de la Trinité, Trinité” before the publication date of 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “M Daprès place à cent lieues dans l’ ouest de la Trinité,” which indicates his location but does not provide any explicit statement of his physical presence at that spot, nor does it give a date within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1797). Since there is no direct evidence that he was physically present in the specified location during that timeframe, we cannot confirm the required condition.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Perouse Voyage chunk4001", "time_period": "1797", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1797", "language": "fr", "text": " On ignore l' époque de leur division en Ostrogoths & en Wisigoths. Il paroît seulement que cette division étoit déjà établie du tems de Claudius II. Peut-être que le Danube fut l' occasion de nommer Ostrogoths ou Goths orientaux, ceux qui demeurerent à la gauche de ce fleuve, & Wisigoths ou Goths occidentaux ceux qui s' établirent en - deçà & sur la droite. Toûjours est -il certain que les Goths devinrent deux nations distinctes qui prirent des routes, & eurent des destinées très - différentes ; & ce fut sous l' empire de Valens vers l' an 370, que la distinction des deux nations de Goths se fit le plus connoître. Ils obéissoient alors à deux rois ; Fritigerne gouvernoit les Wisigoths, & Othanaric les Ostrogoths. Ces derniers s' attacherent à l' empire d' orient, & goûterent l' Arianisme qu' ils porterent en Italie, dans les Gaules & en Espagne. Tantôt vainqueurs, tantôt vaincus, ils obtinrent enfin la Thrace, & furent assez tranquilles tant que vêcut Théodose ; mais après sa mort ils attaquerent l' empire romain sous Radagaise, & ensuite sous Alaric qui prit Rome, la pilla, & finit ses jours à Cozence. Ataulphe son successeur devint amoureux de la soeur d' Honorius, l' épousa, céda l' empire à son beaufrere, & se retira dans les Gaules avec une partie de ses Wisigoths ; l' autre partie préféra de rester en Italie où elle devint si puissante, qu' Odoacre trouva le secret d' usurper le throne, & de s' emparer de l' autorité souveraine. Théodoric partit de Thrace avec ses Ostrogoths, défit Odoacre, & commença le royaume des Ostrogoths en Italie ; je dis le royaume, parce que ce prince se contenta du titre de roi, & fit sa résidence à Ravenne. Ses successeurs se brouillerent avec l' empereur Justinien qui détruisit leur monarchie par les victoires de Bélisaire & de Narsès ; depuis cette époque qui est de l' an 552, il n' est plus question des Ostrogoths dans l' histoire. Seize ans après Alboin vint en Italie, & fonda le royaume des Lombards. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_justinien", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "empereur Justinien" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q13364_ravenne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q13364", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Ravenne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Theodoric’s residence in Ravenna and mentions that “six years after Alboin came to Italy, founded the Lombard kingdom.” It contains no reference to Emperor Justinian being present at Ravenna. The only mention of Justinian is as a ruler who destroyed the Ostrogothic monarchy through his victories; there is no indication that he visited or was physically in Ravenna before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that Justinian was at Ravenna prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the Ostrogothic kingdom and mentions Emperor Justinian only in a general historical context (“l’ empereur Justinien qui détruisit leur monarchie”). It does not state that Justinian was physically present at Ravenne, nor does it provide any date or event linking him to Ravenne within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1797). The only mention of Ravenne concerns a later Ostrogothic king’s residence, unrelated to Justinian. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Emperor Justinian was in Ravenne during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_alaric", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Alaric" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “… et ensuite sous Alaric qui prit Rome, la pilla, & finit ses jours à Cozence.” The phrase “qui prit Rome” indicates that Alaric was physically present in Rome at the time of the event described. Since this event occurred before the document’s publication date (1797), it provides direct evidence that Alaric was indeed in Rome prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “sous Alaric qui prit Rome, la pilla, & finit ses jours à Cozence.” This indicates that Alaric was present in Rome during his lifetime, but it provides no date or year associated with this event. The text is a medieval historical account concerning events centuries before 1797 (e.g., the 3rd‑century AD). There is no mention of any occurrence of Alaric in Rome within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (i.e., between 1767 and 1797). Since the required evidence does not exist, we cannot confirm that Alaric was physically present at Rome during that specific period. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_alboin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Alboin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states, “Seize ans après Alboin vint en Italie, & fonda le royaume des Lombards.” This indicates that Alboin had already been in Italy when he founded the Lombard kingdom. Since founding a kingdom requires physical presence, this proves that Alboin was physically present in Italy at some time before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore there is direct textual evidence of his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Sixteen years after Alboin came to Italy” and that he founded the Lombard kingdom there, but it provides no specific dates or a timeframe that places him in Italy within 30 days before the document’s publication (1797). The text is medieval and does not contain any contemporary evidence linking Alboin to Italy near the year 1797. Therefore there is no explicit indication that he was physically present at the location during the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_fritigerne", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Fritigerne" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q41741_thrace", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41741", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Thrace" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Fritigerne gouvernoit les Wisigoths, & Othanaric les Ostrogoths.” It does not mention Fritigerne’s residence or any visit to Thrace; the only reference to Thrace concerns the Ostrogoths (e.g., “Théodoric partit de Thrace”). Since there is no textual evidence that Fritigerne was physically present in Thrace before 1797, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the Ostrogothic kingdom and mentions “Fritigerne gouvernoit les Wisigoths,” but it does not state that Fritigerne was in Thrace or provide any date near 1797. The text is an ancient historical account, and there are no explicit references to a location (Thrace) combined with the person’s presence within the required time window (the 30 days before 1797). Consequently, there is no evidence in the document that Fritigerne was physically present in Thrace during that period. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_radagaise", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Radagaise" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “ils ont attaqué l’empire romain sous Radagaise,” indicating that Radagaise was the leader of the Ostrogothic forces during those attacks, but it does not say he himself was physically present in Rome. The only mention of Rome is later: “sous Alaric qui prit Rome.” Thus there is no textual evidence that Radagaise visited or resided in Rome before 1797. Consequently we cannot confirm his presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the Ostrogothic and Visigothic kingdoms in the early medieval period (e.g., “under Radagaise”). It contains no explicit statement that Radagaise was physically present in Rome, nor does it provide a date or any temporal marker linking him to Rome. The only mention of Rome is as a location where Alaric took the city and later died at Cozence, but this is unrelated to Radagaise. Moreover, the document’s publication date (1797) falls far after the events described; there is no evidence that any person mentioned in the text was present in Rome within 30 days before 1797. Therefore, the criteria for a positive classification are not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_belisaire", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Bélisaire" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q13364_ravenne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q13364", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Ravenne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the Ostrogothic kingdom and mentions “Bélisaire” only as a victor who defeated the Ostrogoths under Emperor Justinian, with no reference to his location or any visit to Ravenne. The text does not contain any statement indicating that Bélisaire was physically present in Ravenne before 1797. Since there is no evidence of his presence at that site, we conclude that he was not there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the historical figure Bélisaire’s victories against Emperor Justinian, but it does not state that Bélisaire was physically present in Ravenne or provide any dates linking him to that location. The only mention of Ravenne is regarding Theodoric’s residence there, unrelated to Bélisaire. Since no explicit evidence places Bélisaire in Ravenne within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1797), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_theodoric", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Théodoric" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q41741_thrace", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41741", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Thrace" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Théodoric partit de Thrace avec ses Ostrogoths…”, indicating that Théodoric had been in Thrace prior to his departure. This indicates physical presence at the location before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore, there is direct evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Théodoric partit de Thrace avec ses Ostrogoths,” indicating he left Thrace at some point in the 5th century. No date or reference to a later period is provided, and there is no mention of Théodoric being present in Thrace near the publication date (1797). The text only describes an event that occurred centuries earlier, so it does not satisfy the requirement for presence within the 30‑day window before 1797. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at Thrace during that timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_theodose", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Théodose" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the Ostrogothic and Visigothic divisions under Emperor Valens, noting that “ils ont finalement obtenu la Thrace” while they were “très tranquilles tant que vécut Théodose.” This indicates that Théodose was in **Thrace**, not Italy. Later it mentions “Théodoric partit de Thrace with his Ostrogoths,” again referring to a departure from Thrace, not Italy. No part of the text states that Théodose ever entered or resided in Italy before 1797. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting his presence in Italy prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Theodose (Théodose) only in the context of his rule over Ostrogoths and mentions his death, but it does not provide any explicit date or location indicating he was physically present in Italy during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1797). The only reference to Italy is about Theodoric moving from Thrace to Italy, with no associated dates. Since there is no evidence that Théodose himself was in Italy within that timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_theodose", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Théodose" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q41741_thrace", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41741", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Thrace" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “ils ont obtenu enfin la Thrace, & furent assez tranquilles tant que Vécut Théodose ; mais après sa mort ils attaquerent l’ empire romain sous Radagaise…”. This indicates that Théodose was physically present in Thrace at the time of his rule (i.e., before his death). Since the document’s publication date is 1797, this presence predates it. Therefore there is explicit evidence that Théodose was in Thrace prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “ils ont obtenu enfin la Thrace, et furent tranquilles tant que Théodose” indicating that Théodose was alive at the time they held Thrace, but it does not state that he himself was physically present in Thrace. The only explicit reference to a person being in Thrace is “Théodoric partit de Thrace”, which refers to a different individual (the Ostrogothic king) and provides no date or proximity to the 1797 publication. No sentence links Théodose’s presence in Thrace with a specific time within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date. Therefore there is no direct evidence that Théodose was physically present at Thrace during the required period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_radagaise", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Radagaise" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q41741_thrace", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41741", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Thrace" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that the Ostrogothic kingdom “obtinrent enfin la Thrace” and later “attacquèrent l’ empire romain sous Radagaise.” The phrase “sous Radagaise” indicates that Radagaise was the ruler of a polity that included Thrace at that time. Therefore, Radagaise must have been physically present in Thrace during his rule, which predates the document’s publication date (1797). This textual evidence confirms his presence in the specified location before 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Radagaise” only as a ruler of the Roman Empire (“attacqueront l’ empire romain sous Radagaise”), but it does not state that he was physically present in Thrace. The text also contains no date or temporal marker that would place any event within 30 days before the publication date (1797). Because there is no explicit evidence of Radagaise’s presence in Thrace during that window, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_claudius", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Claudius II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q1653_danube", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1653", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Danube" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that the division between Ostrogoths and Wisigoths “était déjà établie du temps de Claudius II,” but it does not describe Claudius II himself traveling or residing along the Danube. No other part of the text mentions him being at the Danube, nor any event linking his presence to that location before 1797. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting the claim that Claudius II was physically present in the Danube region prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that the Ostrogoth‑Wisigoth division “was already established from the time of Claudius II,” but it does not state that Claudius himself was physically present at the Danube or any other location during that period. There is no explicit mention of his presence, nor any date or event linking him to the Danube within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1797). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence there.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_ataulphe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Ataulphe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Ataulphe’s actions after his marriage: he “se retira dans les Gaules avec une partie de ses Wisigoths; l’ autre partie préféra de rester en Italie.” It mentions his residence in Gaul and the remaining part staying in Italy, but it contains no reference to him being in Rome. Since there is no textual evidence that Ataulphe was physically present in Rome before 1797, we cannot confirm such a presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the Ostrogothic kingdom, its rulers, and events such as Theodoric’s departure from Thrace and his residence at Ravenna. It mentions Ataulphe only in a genealogical context (“Ataulphe son…”) without any reference to him being in Rome or any date near 1797. The text contains no explicit statement that Ataulphe was physically present in Rome within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1797). Since there is no evidence of his presence at that location and time, we cannot confirm it.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_cozence", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cozence" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q220_rome", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q220", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Rome" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that the king “finit ses jours à Cozence,” indicating his deathplace was Cozence, not Rome. No other part of the text mentions him being present in Rome or traveling there before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence that he was physically at Rome prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that the person “finit ses jours à Cozence,” indicating his death at Cozence, not at Rome. There is no mention of him being in Rome or any dates close to 1797 within a 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1797). The text concerns historical events about Goths and does not provide evidence that he was physically present in Rome during that period. Therefore, there is no explicit textual support for his presence at Rome within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_odoacre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Odoacre" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Théodoric partit de Thrace with his Ostrogoths, défit Odoacre, & commença le royaume des Ostrogoths en Italie ; je dis le royaume, parce que ce prince se contenta du titre de roi, & fit sa résidence à Ravenne. Ses successeurs se brouillerent avec l' empereur Justinien … Seize ans après Alboin vint en Italie, & fonda le royaume des Lombards.” \nLater it says: “Odoacre trouva le secret d' usurper le throne, & de s' emparer de l' autorité souveraine.” The context indicates that Odoacre was in Italy (the Ostrogothic kingdom) when he seized the throne. Therefore there is explicit textual evidence that Odoacre was physically present in Italy before the document’s publication date of 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Odoacre’s actions and his rule, but it contains no date or temporal marker that places him in Italy during the period from roughly 16 June to 17 September 1797. The text is a medieval narrative about Ostrogothic history and does not provide any explicit evidence of Odoacre’s presence at the location within the required time window. Therefore, there is no support for confirming his physical presence in Italy during that month.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_odoacre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Odoacre" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q41741_thrace", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41741", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Thrace" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Théodoric partit de Thrace avec ses Ostrogoths” (i.e., Théodoric departed from Thrace). It then says the Ostrogoths “défit Odoacre,” implying a battle where Odoacre was on the opposing side, but it does not state that Odoacre himself was physically present in Thrace. No other part of the text mentions Odoacre’s location or any activity there before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence that Odoacre was in Thrace at any time prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Odoacre only as a figure who was defied by Théodoric, with no explicit statement that he himself was physically present in Thrace at any time near the publication date of 1797. The events described (e.g., “Théodoric partit de Thrace”) refer to an earlier period and do not provide dates or locations that fall within the 30‑day window preceding 1797. Consequently, there is no textual evidence confirming Odoacre’s presence in Thrace during that specific timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv-NIL_alaric", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Alaric" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk4001.tsv_Q41741_thrace", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41741", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Thrace" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the division of the Goths into Ostrogoths and Wisigoths, noting that Othanaric ruled the Ostrogoths while Fritigerne ruled the Wisigoths. It then states that after Theodose’s death “ils attaquerent l’ empire romain sous Alaric qui prit Rome, la pilla, & finit ses jours à Cozence.” This indicates that Alaric was present in Rome (and later died there), but it provides no mention of him being in Thrace. The text does not contain any reference to Alaric’s presence or activity in Thrace before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore, there is no evidence supporting his physical presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses early Gothic history and mentions Alaric only in the context of his actions in Rome (“sous Alaric qui prit Rome…”) and his later residence at Cozence. It contains no reference to Alaric being present in Thrace, nor any date that places him near 1797. The text is an ancient narrative (3rd‑century events) and does not provide evidence of a presence in the specified location within the required 30‑day window before the publication date. Therefore there is no explicit textual support for Alaric’s presence in Thrace during that period.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk557", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Mais enfin abandonné et livré au roi, condamné seulement à la prison, et ayant voulu s' évader, il paya sa hardiesse de sa tête. Ce fut alors que l' esprit de faction fut anéanti, et que les anglais, n' étant plus redoutables à leur monarque, commencèrent à le devenir à leurs voisins, surtout lorsque Henri VIII en montant au trône, fut, par l' économie extrême de son pére, possesseur d' un ample trésor, et par la sagesse de ce gouvernement, maître d' un peuple belliqueux, et pourtant soumis autant que les anglais peuvent l' être. CHAPITRE 97 Idée générale du seizième siècle. Le commencement du seiziéme siécle que nous avons déja entamé, nous présente à la fois les plus grands spectacles que le monde ait jamais fournis. Si on jette la vuë sur ceux qui régnaient pour lors en Europe, leur gloire, ou leur conduite, ou les grands changements dont ils ont été cause, rendent leurs noms immortels. C' est à Constantinople un Sélim qui met sous la domination ottomane la Syrie et l' égypte, dont les mahométans mammelucs avaient été en possession depuis le treiziéme siécle. C' est après lui son fils, le grand Soliman, qui le premier des empereurs turcs marche jusqu' à Vienne, et se fait couronner roi de Perse dans Bagdat prise par ses armes, faisant trembler à la fois l' Europe et l' Asie. On voit en même tems vers le nord, Gustave Vasa, brisant dans la Suéde le joug étranger, élu roi du pays, dont il est le libérateur. En Moscovie Jean Basilowitz soustrait sa patrie aux tartares dont elle était tributaire ; prince à la vérité barbare, et chef d' une nation plus barbare encore ; mais le vengeur de son pays mérite d' être compté parmi les grands princes. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_jean_basilowitz", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jean Basilowitz" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q170770_moscovie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q170770", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Moscovie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states “En Moscove Jean Basilowitz soustrait sa patrie aux tartares…”. This indicates that Jean Basilowitz was physically present in Moscow at the time of writing, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1756. Therefore there is direct evidence of his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “En Moscovie Jean Basilowitz soustrait sa patrie aux tartares…”, indicating his presence in Moscow at some point, but it provides no date or temporal reference that falls within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between 1755‑12 and 1756). Because the text lacks an explicit date tied to this event, we cannot confirm that Jean Basilowitz was physically present in Moscow during that specific period. Therefore there is insufficient evidence to classify his presence as TRUE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q52947_gustave_vasa", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q52947", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Gustave Vasa" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “vers le nord, Gustave Vasa, brisant dans la Suède le joug étranger, élu roi du pays…”. This indicates that Gustave Vasa was physically in Sweden at some point before the document’s publication date (1756). Since Sweden is part of Europe, his presence there satisfies the condition that he was “at the specified location” (Europe) prior to 1756. The text provides explicit evidence of his presence and does not require inference beyond what is written.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Gustave Vasa” only as a historical figure, but it does not provide any date or location indicating his physical presence in Europe during the period leading up to 1756. The text discusses events in Moscow and elsewhere, but there is no explicit statement that Gustave Vasa was present in Europe within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore, we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location during that timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_selim", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Sélim" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q858_syrie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q858", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Syrie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The excerpt states that “C’ est à Constantinople un Sélim qui met sous la domination ottomane la Syrie et l’ égypte…”. This indicates that the ruler named Sélim was in Constantinople and that he exercised control over Syria from that capital, but it does not provide any explicit mention of him traveling to or being physically present in Syria itself. No other part of the text references a visit, residence, or activity in Syria by this individual before 1756. Therefore there is no direct evidence supporting his presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Sélim as being in Constantinople, where he “met sous la domination ottomane la Syrie et l’ égypte.” This indicates that the Ottoman Empire (represented by Sélim) had control over Syria, but it does not state that Sélim himself was physically present in Syria. Moreover, the text is dated to the 16th century and contains no explicit temporal markers close to 1756. Consequently there is no evidence that Sélim was in Syria within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q52947_gustave_vasa", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q52947", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Gustave Vasa" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q34_suéde", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q34", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Suéde" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses several historical figures and events, but it does not state that Gustave Vasa was physically present in Suède. The only mention of “Gustave Vasa” is as a name within the text, while the location “Suède” appears only in the context of other events (e.g., “En Moscovie Jean Basilowitz…”). There is no explicit statement such as “Gustave Vasa was in Suède” or any indication that he visited or resided there before 1756. Consequently, the text provides no evidence of his presence at that location prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Gustave Vasa, brisant dans la Suéde le joug étranger…” but it provides no explicit date or temporal marker that places this event within the 30‑day window ending on 1756. The text is dated to the 16th century (“CHAPITRE 97 Idée générale du seizième siècle”), indicating the event occurred long before the publication year. Since there is no evidence of Gustave Vasa being in Suède within the required timeframe, the claim cannot be confirmed.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_selim", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Sélim" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q79_égypte", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q79", "loc_mentions_list": [ "égypte" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The excerpt states that “C’ est à Constantinople un Sélim qui met sous la domination ottomane la Syrie et l’ égypte…”. This indicates that the Sélim is located in Constantinople and that Egypt is under Ottoman rule, but it does not describe him traveling to or being physically present in Egypt. No other part of the text mentions a visit, residence, or any action by Sélim in Egypt before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Sélim as a ruler of Constantinople who “makes under Ottoman domination both Syria and Egypt.” This indicates that the territories were under Ottoman control, not that Sélim himself was physically present in Egypt. The text contains no explicit statement or date indicating his presence in Egypt within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Moreover, the document is dated to the 16th century and does not provide any temporal markers close to 1756. Consequently there is no evidence that Sélim was present in Egypt during the required period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_selim", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Sélim" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q16869_constantinople", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q16869", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Constantinople" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states “C’est à Constantinople un Sélim qui met sous la domination ottomane la Syrie et l’ égypte…”. This indicates that a ruler named Sélim was physically present in Constantinople at the time of the events described, which predate 1756. The text provides explicit evidence of his presence there before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes a historical figure named “Sélim” who is said to be at Constantinople, but it provides no explicit date or temporal marker that places this event within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication in 1756. The text references the 16th century (“CHAPITRE 97 Idée générale du seizième siècle”) and does not contain any dates, events, or contextual cues indicating Sélim’s presence in Constantinople during the period from roughly 12 December 1755 to 30 January 1756. Because the required evidence is absent, we cannot confirm that Sélim was physically present at Constantinople within that window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_soliman", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Soliman" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q79_égypte", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q79", "loc_mentions_list": [ "égypte" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Sultan Soliman (also called Selim) as being at Constantinople, where he “met under the Ottoman domination Syria and Egypt.” It states that Egypt was already under Ottoman rule since the 13th century, but it does not say Soliman himself visited or was physically present in Egypt. No other part of the text mentions him traveling to or residing in Egypt before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is no evidence that Soliman was at Egypt prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage refers to “C’ est à Constantinople un Sélim qui met sous la domination ottomane la Syrie et l' égypte,” indicating that Selim (Soliman) was in Constantinople and that Egypt was under Ottoman rule. It does not state that Soliman himself visited or was physically present in Egypt, nor does it provide any date near 1756. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence in Egypt within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1756), we cannot confirm this claim.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_soliman", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Soliman" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q858_syrie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q858", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Syrie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “C’est à Constantinople un Sélim qui met sous la domination ottomane la Syrie et l’Égypte…” indicating Selim’s presence at Constantinople and his control over Syria, but it does not state that Soliman himself was in Syria. The only reference to Soliman is that he traveled to Vienna and was crowned king of Persia in Bagdat; there is no mention of him being in Syria or any other activity there before 1756. Since the text provides no evidence of Soliman’s physical presence in Syria prior to the document’s publication date, we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Sultan Selim’s control over Syria and mentions his son Soliman in a separate context (his campaign to Persia). It does not state that Soliman was physically present in Syria, nor does it provide any date or event linking him to Syria within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1756. Because there is no explicit evidence of Soliman’s presence at the specified location during that timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_soliman", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Soliman" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q48_asie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q48", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Asie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “son fils, le grand Soliman, … marche jusqu’ à Vienne, et se fait couronner roi de Perse dans Bagdat prise par ses armes, faisant trembler à la fois l’ Europe et l’ Asie.” This indicates that Soliman physically traveled to Vienna and was crowned in Baghdad (Bagdat), a city located in Asia. The act of being crowned there implies his presence in the region at that time, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1756. Therefore, there is explicit textual evidence that Soliman was present in Asia prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes Soliman’s actions in the 16th‑century, noting that he marched to Vienna and was crowned king of Perse in Bagdad (Baghdad). While this indicates his presence in Asia at some point, it provides no specific date or temporal marker that places him within a month before the document’s publication date of 1756. The text is historical narrative without contemporary references, so there is no explicit evidence that Soliman was physically present in Asia during the required window. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence as required.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_soliman", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Soliman" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q1530_bagdat", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1530", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bagdat" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “le grand Soliman … se fait couronner roi de Perse dans Bagdat prise par ses armes.” This indicates that Soliman was physically present in Bagdat (Persia) when he was crowned there, implying his presence at the location before the document’s publication date of 1756. The text does not provide a specific year for this event, but it is clearly an earlier occurrence within the narrative context, thus satisfying the condition that Soliman was present in Bagdat prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Soliman’s campaign to Vienna and his crowning in Bagdat, but it contains no explicit date or temporal marker that places this event near the publication date of 1756. The text is clearly from a 16th‑century context (e.g., “sixteenth century”, references to earlier centuries). Since there is no evidence that Soliman was in Bagdat within roughly thirty days before 1756, we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location and time window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_jean_basilowitz", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jean Basilowitz" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q34_suéde", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q34", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Suéde" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The excerpt states “En Moscovie Jean Basilowitz soustrait sa patrie aux tartares…” indicating that the person was in Moscow at the time of the narrative (16th‑century events). No part of the text mentions him being in Suède, nor does it provide any evidence of his presence there. Since the only location associated with Jean Basilowitz is Moscow and the document’s publication date is 1756, we cannot confirm that he was physically present in Suède before that date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains a reference to “Jean Basilowitz” only in the context of Moscovie, with no indication that he was in Suéde or any date near 1756. The location “Suéde” appears earlier in a separate clause about Gustave Vasa’s actions, but there is no explicit statement linking Jean Basilowitz to that place within the required time window (the 30‑day period preceding the document’s publication date of 1756). Since the text provides no evidence of his presence at Suéde in that timeframe, we cannot confirm it. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q52947_gustave_vasa", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q52947", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Gustave Vasa" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q1530_bagdat", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1530", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bagdat" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Gustave Vasa as the liberator who broke out of foreign rule in Sweden (Suède). It does not mention him traveling or residing anywhere else, let alone in Bagdat. The only reference to “Bagdat” is in a sentence about Soliman’s crowning there, unrelated to Vasa. Since no text indicates that Vasa was physically present at Bagdat before the document’s publication date (1756), we conclude that there is no evidence of his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses several historical figures and events, including Gustave Vasa’s role in Sweden and the crowning of Soliman in Bagdat. However, there is no sentence that explicitly states that Gustave Vasa was physically present in Bagdat during any time period. The only mention of Bagdat appears in a separate clause about Soliman’s crowning, not linked to Vasa’s presence. Moreover, the text contains no date or temporal marker that places such an event within 30 days before the publication date (1756). Because the required explicit evidence is absent, we cannot confirm Gustave Vasa’s presence in Bagdat within the specified window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_selim", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Sélim" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a Sélim who is “à Constantinople” and mentions his actions concerning Syria and Egypt. It does not state that he ever traveled to or was present in Europe; the only European reference concerns his son Soliman’s march to Vienna, which is unrelated to Sélim himself. Since there is no textual evidence of Sélim being physically present in Europe before 1756, we conclude that the claim lacks support.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical figures and events but does not provide any explicit statement that Sélim was physically present in Europe within a month before the document’s publication date of 1756. The only mention of Sélim is in reference to his rule over Constantinople, Syria, and Egypt (“C’ est à Constantinople un Sélim…”), which places him in Asia‑Anatolia, not Europe. No dates or events near 1756 are given in the text that would indicate a presence in Europe during the required time window (mid‑July to early August 1756). Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim of Sélim’s presence in Europe within the specified period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_soliman", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Soliman" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv-NIL_vienne", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Vienne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “son fils, le grand Soliman, qui le premier des empereurs turcs marche jusqu’ à Vienne, et se fait couronner roi de Perse dans Bagdat prise par ses armes.” This indicates that Soliman physically traveled to Vienna and was crowned there. Since the text is part of a document dated 1756, this travel must have occurred before that date. Therefore there is explicit evidence that Soliman was present in Vienna prior to the publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage refers to “le grand Soliman” as a historical figure who marched to Vienna, but it provides only a 16th‑century context and no date or explicit statement that he was physically present in Vienna near the publication date of 1756. There is no mention of Soliman’s presence in Vienna within the 30‑day window preceding 1756, nor any evidence linking him to that location at that time. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence there.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q52947_gustave_vasa", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q52947", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Gustave Vasa" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q170770_moscovie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q170770", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Moscovie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses various historical figures and events, including a reference to “En Moscovie Jean Basilowitz soustrait sa patrie aux tartares…”. The only mention of Gustave Vasa in the text is elsewhere (e.g., “Gustave Vasa, brisant dans la Suède le joug étranger”). There is no statement indicating that Vasa himself was present in Moscow or any related activity there. Since the document does not provide evidence of his presence at Moscow before its publication date (1756), we conclude that he was not physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses various historical figures and events, including a reference to “En Moscovie Jean Basilowitz…”. It contains no statement that Gustave Vasa was in Moscow or any other location near the publication date (1756). The only mention of Vasa is elsewhere in the text, unrelated to Moscow. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the specified location within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication, we conclude that the claim does not hold.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q52947_gustave_vasa", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q52947", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Gustave Vasa" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk557.tsv_Q48_asie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q48", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Asie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses various historical figures and events in Europe (e.g., Henry VIII, Soliman, Jean Basilowitz) but does not mention Gustave Vasa traveling to or being present in Asia. The only reference to “Asia” is in the context of Ottoman expansion into Syria and Egypt, unrelated to Vasa. Since there is no textual evidence that Vasa was physically present in Asia before 1756, we conclude that he was not at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical figures and events but does not contain any explicit statement that Gustave Vasa was physically present in Asia within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to “Asia” is tied to Soliman, not to Vasa. Since there is no direct evidence of Vasa’s presence at the specified location during the required timeframe, we conclude that the claim cannot be verified.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk820", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Ces gentilshommes étaient la plupart des calvinistes, qui se faisaient un devoir de venger leurs fréres persécutés. Le prince Louis De Condé avait hautement embrassé cette secte, parce que le duc de Guise, et le cardinal De Lorraine étaient catholiques. Une révolution dans l' église et dans l' état devait être le fruit de cette entreprise. Les Guises eurent à peine le tems de faire venir des troupes. Il n' y avait pas alors quinze mille hommes enrégimentés dans tout le royaume ; mais on en rassembla bientôt assez pour exterminer les conjurés. Comme ils venaient par troupes séparées, ils furent aisément défaits. La Renaudie fut tué en combattant ; plusieurs moururent comme lui les armes à la main. Ceux qui furent pris périrent dans les suplices, et pendant un mois entier on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafauts sanglants, et des potences chargées de cadavres. La conspiration découverte et punie, ne servit qu' à augmenter le pouvoir de ceux qu' on avait voulu détruire. François De Guise eut la puissance des anciens maires du palais, sous le nouveau tître de lieutenant - général du royaume. Mais cette autorité même de François De Guise, et l' ambition turbulente du cardinal son frére, qui voulait introduire l' inquisition en France, révoltèrent contre eux tous les ordres du royaume, et produisirent de nouveaux troubles. Les calvinistes toûjours secrétement animés par le prince Louis De Condé, prirent les armes dans plusieurs provinces. Il fallait que les Guises fussent bien puissants et bien redoutables, puisque ni Condé, ni Antoine roi de Navarre son frére, pére de Henri IV, ni le fameux amiral De Coligni, ni son frére D' Andelot colonel général de l' infanterie, n' osaient encor se déclarer ouvertement. Le prince De Condé fut le premier chef de parti, qui parut faire la guerre civile en homme timide. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_francois_de_guise", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François De Guise" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “François De Guise eut la puissance des anciens maires du palais, sous le nouveau tître de lieutenant‑général du royaume.” This indicates he held a high office within the French royal administration, which requires his physical presence in France. Since this authority existed before 1756 (the document’s publication date), it confirms that François De Guise was indeed present in France at some point prior to that year.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses historical figures and events but contains no explicit statement that François De Guise was physically present in France within 30 days before the publication date (1756). It merely notes his power and role, without any location or temporal marker tied to him. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at the specified location during the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_louis_de_conde", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "prince Louis De Condé" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “Le prince Louis De Condé” as a figure who had embraced the Calvinist sect and was active in France (“le premier chef de parti”). This indicates that he was physically present in France at some point before the document’s publication date of 1756. The text does not provide any contradictory evidence suggesting otherwise, so we can conclude that his presence in France is supported by the passage.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the prince’s religious stance and political influence, but it contains no statement that he was physically present in France or any specific location during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The text merely notes his support for Calvinism and references other figures; there is no mention of a visit, residence, or event indicating his presence. Because the required evidence is absent, we cannot confirm that he was in France within the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_francois_de_guise", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François De Guise" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_amboise", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amboise" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The excerpt discusses the activities of the Guises and the situation in Amboise, noting that “Les Guises eurent à peine le temps de faire venir des troupes” and that “pendant un mois entier on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafaux sanglants.” However, it does not state that François De Guise himself was physically present at Amboise; it merely mentions his political power elsewhere. Since the text provides no explicit evidence of his presence in Amboise before 1756, we cannot confirm his physical presence there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the political situation and mentions François De Guise’s authority but does not state that he was physically present in Amboise. The only reference to Amboise is a description of a month when “on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafaux…”, indicating that no living people were there during that period, yet it provides no evidence of De Guise’s presence. Since the required window (14 June – 17 May 1756) is not covered by any explicit statement of his presence in Amboise, we cannot confirm his physical presence within that timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_renaudie", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Renaudie" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_amboise", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amboise" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that “La Renaudie fut tué en combattant” and later notes a month in which Amboise was filled with corps, but it does not explicitly state that Renaudie himself was present at Amboise. The text only indicates his death by combat without specifying the location of that battle, and the mention of bodies in Amboise appears to refer to the aftermath of an event there, not to Renaudie’s presence. Therefore there is no direct evidence from the document that Renaudie was physically in Amboise before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage reports that “La Renaudie fut tué en combattant” and later notes that during a month in Amboise only corps were present, but it does not explicitly state that Renaudie himself was physically present at Amboise. Moreover, the text contains no date or temporal marker linking this event to the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). Without an explicit mention of Renaudie being in Amboise within that timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence there.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri IV" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to Henri IV only as “père de Henri IV” (the father of Henri IV) and does not describe him being in France or any event that would place him there. It merely mentions his lineage, without indicating physical presence at the location. Since no explicit evidence is provided that Henri IV was physically present in France before 1756, we cannot conclude he was there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Calvinist politics and references Henri IV only as the father of Antoine, without any explicit statement that Henri IV himself was physically present in France or providing a date tied to such an event. No mention of Henri IV’s presence within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756) is found. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_antoine", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Antoine roi de Navarre" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly names “Antoine roi de Navarre son frère, père de Henri IV” among the figures who were not openly declared by the Guises. This reference occurs within a discussion of French political and military affairs, indicating that Antoine was a recognized French nobleman and, as father of Henri IV (who reigned in France from 1589 to 1610), he must have been physically present in France at some point before the document’s publication date of 1756. The text provides no indication that he was elsewhere; rather it treats him as a French figure, implying his presence in France.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses French political figures and events, but it only mentions “Antoine roi de Navarre” as a title and relation (“son frére”). It contains no explicit statement of his physical presence in France or any date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (i.e., between 1756‑08‑24 and 1756‑09‑23). Because the text provides no evidence that he was actually present at the location during that period, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_guises", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Guises" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “Les Guises” and mentions their military activities (“eurent à peine le temps de faire venir des troupes”) within the context of France, indicating that the family was physically present in France at that time. Earlier references such as “le duc de Guise” further confirm that the Guises were a French noble house operating in France before 1756. Therefore there is explicit evidence that the person (the Guises) was indeed located in France prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the Guises and their political role, but it contains no explicit statement that they were physically present in France within a month before 1756. It merely notes that “Les Guises eurent à peine le temps de faire venir des troupes,” which is a comment on their military capacity rather than an indication of location or date. Since the text lacks any temporal marker (e.g., a specific year, month, or event tied to a presence) and does not assert that the Guises were in France at that time, we cannot confirm their physical presence within the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_conde", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "prince De Condé", "Condé" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “Le prince Louis De Condé” and describes his actions within the context of French political and religious affairs (“le prince … avait hautement embrassé cette secte”). By naming him as a French prince, the text implies that he was physically present in France at some point prior to its publication date (1756). There is no indication that he was elsewhere or absent from France. Therefore we can conclude that there is evidence of his presence in France before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the prince’s religious stance and political situation, but it does not contain any explicit statement that he was physically present in France during the 30‑day window ending on 1756 (i.e., between 1755‑12‑15 and 1756‑01‑14). The text merely notes his actions (“avait hautement embrassé”) without providing a date or location tied to that period. Therefore there is no direct evidence of his presence in France within the required timeframe, leading to a classification of FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_guises", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Guises" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_amboise", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amboise" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the actions and presence of the Guises in relation to military operations and the aftermath at Amboise. It notes that “Les Guises eurent à peine le temps de faire venir des troupes” and that “pendant un mois entier on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafaux sanglants, et des potences chargées de cadavres.” However, there is no explicit statement indicating that any member of the Guises family or organization was physically present in Amboise. The text merely describes the state of the location and the lack of troops, without linking the Guises to being there. Consequently, the document provides no direct evidence of the person “Guises” being at the specified location before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Les Guises eurent à peine le temps de faire venir des troupes” but does not state that the Guises themselves were in Amboise during any specific timeframe. The only reference to Amboise is: “pendant un mois entier on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafaux sanglants, et des potences chargées de cadavres.” This indicates a period of absence and death, not the presence of Guises. No sentence links the person “Guises” with being in Amboise within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that the person was present at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_andelot", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Andelot" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage names “le fameux amiral De Coligni, ni son frére D' Andelot colonel général de l'infanterie,” indicating that Andelot was a French military officer holding the rank of colonel general. In the context of the text, which discusses events in France (e.g., Amboise), this designation implies he served within the French army and therefore was physically present in France at some point before the document’s publication date of 1756. No part of the passage contradicts his presence; instead it situates him among other French officials, confirming his involvement in French affairs.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical figures and events but does not contain any explicit statement that the individual “D' Andelot” was physically present in France within a month before the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to him is his title as “colonel général de l’infanterie,” which merely identifies his rank, not his location or timing. No dates are provided in the text that would place him in France near 1756, and there is no mention of a visit, residence, or activity at the location during the relevant period. Consequently, the evidence does not satisfy the requirement for presence within the specified time window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_louis_de_conde", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "prince Louis De Condé" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_amboise", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amboise" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a military operation involving the Guises and mentions that “pendant un mois entier on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafauts sanglants…” indicating that the location of interest is Amboise. However, the text does not state or imply that Prince Louis De Condé was present there; it merely notes his role elsewhere (“Le prince De Condé fut le premier chef de parti”). No mention of him being in Amboise appears before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at that location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the political situation in France, noting that “pendant un mois entier on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafaux sanglants…” indicating that during a month (the period of the text) there was no presence of people in Amboise—only corps and debris. The only mention of Prince Louis De Condé is elsewhere, describing his religious affiliation and political role, but it does not state or imply any physical presence at Amboise within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Since there is no explicit textual evidence that he was in Amboise during that timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_renaudie", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Renaudie" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a violent conflict within the French kingdom (“Les Guises eurent à peine le temps de faire venir des troupes… Ils furent aisément défaits”). It explicitly states that “La Renaudie fut tué en combattant,” indicating that he was killed while fighting in this context. Since the narrative is set in France and concerns events before 1756, it implies that Renaudie was physically present in France at some point prior to the document’s publication date. Therefore there is direct evidence of his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage reports that “La Renaudie fut tué en combattant,” but it does not provide a specific date or a precise location tied to that event, nor does it indicate that he was in France during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (14 June – 17 May 1756). The only mention of “France” is generic and refers to the broader context of French politics, not to Renaudie’s presence at a particular time. Because there is no explicit evidence that Renaudie was physically present in France within the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_conde", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "prince De Condé", "Condé" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_amboise", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amboise" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the political situation in France, focusing on the Guises family and the prince’s role as a leader of Calvinist forces. It notes that “Les calvinistes … prirent les armes dans plusieurs provinces,” indicating Condé was active elsewhere but does not state he was physically present in Amboise. The only mention of Amboise is about the aftermath of battles (“pendant un mois entier on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafaux sanglants…”), with no reference to Condé’s presence there. Since the text provides no explicit evidence that Prince De Condé was in Amboise before 1756, we conclude that the claim is unsupported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses events and locations, including a reference to “pendant un mois entier on ne vit dans Amboise que des échafauts sanglants…”. This indicates that the area was occupied by corps and not by any notable person. The text contains no explicit statement or contextual cue that Prince De Condé (or Condé) was physically present in Amboise during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1756. Without a direct mention of his presence, we cannot confirm that he was there within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri IV" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_amboise", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amboise" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses events in Amboise, including the presence of troops and casualties, but it does not state or imply that Henri IV himself was there. The only reference to Henri IV is a genealogical note (“père de Henri IV”) indicating his father’s name, not his own presence at the location. Since no mention of Henri IV being in Amboise appears before the document’s publication date (1756), we have no evidence that he was physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses events in the early‑17th century concerning Calvinists, the Guises, and the Prince of Condé. It contains no explicit statement that Henri IV was present at Amboise during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (June 14 – May 17 1756). The only reference to Amboise is a description of its condition after a battle, with no mention of Henri IV. Therefore there is no evidence that Henri IV was physically present at Amboise within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_andelot", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Andelot" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_amboise", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amboise" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the political situation of French nobles and military leaders, noting that “le fameux amiral De Coligni, ni son frére D' Andelot colonel général de l’infanterie” were among those who dared not openly act. It mentions his rank and role but does not state or imply any visit to Amboise. The only reference to Amboise in the text is a description of its condition during a period, with no connection to Andelot’s presence there. Therefore there is no evidence that D' Andelot was physically present at Amboise before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses political figures in France but does not state that the individual “D' Andelot” was physically present in Amboise, nor does it provide a date or time reference linking his presence to the location. The only mention of Andelot is as a title (“colonel général de l’infanterie”), and the reference to Amboise concerns the state of the town during a month-long period, not any specific event involving Andelot. Since there is no explicit evidence that he was in Amboise within roughly 30 days before the publication date (1756), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_antoine", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Antoine roi de Navarre" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk820.tsv-NIL_amboise", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amboise" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that the Guises needed to be powerful because “ni Condé, ni Antoine roi de Navarre son frère … n’osaient se déclarer ouvertement.” This phrasing indicates that Antoine was not present at Amboise (or elsewhere in the context of the war) and therefore cannot be shown as having been there. The text only mentions his absence; it does not provide any evidence of his presence at Amboise before 1756. Consequently, we conclude that there is no evidence supporting his physical presence at the specified location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage lists Antoine roi de Navarre among other figures who did not openly declare themselves, but it provides no mention of his physical presence in Amboise nor any date that would place such an event within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). The only reference to Amboise is a description of its state after a battle, with no connection to Antoine. Consequently there is no explicit evidence that he was physically present at Amboise in the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk1041", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " C' est que tous deux firent mourir leurs fils. Jean Basilide soupçonnant son fils d' une conspiration pendant le siége de Pleskou, le tua d' un coup de pique ; et Pierre ayant fait condamner le sien à la mort, ne permit pas que ce prince survécut à sa condamnation et à sa grace. L' histoire ne fournit guère d' événement plus extraordinaire que celui des faux Demetrius, qui agita si longtems la Russie après la mort de Jean Basilides. Ce czar laissa deux fils, l' un nommé Fédor ou Théodor, l' autre Demetri ou Demetrius. Fédor régna ; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére. Jusques -là les moeurs grossiéres de cette cour n' avaient point encor adopté la politique des sultans, et des anciens empereurs grecs, de sacrifier les princes du sang à la sûreté du trône. Un premier ministre nommé Boris - Gudenou, dont Fédor avait épousé la soeur, persuada au czar Fédor, qu' on ne pouvait bien régner qu' en imitant les turcs, et en assassinant son frére. Ce premier ministre Boris envoya un officier dans le village où était élevé le jeune Demetri, avec ordre de le tuer. L' officier de retour dit qu' il avait exécuté sa commission, et demanda la récompense qu' on lui avait promise. Boris pour toute récompense fit tuer le meurtrier, afin de supprimer les preuves du crime. On prétend que Boris quelque tems après empoisonna le czar Fédor ; et quoiqu' il en fût soupçonné, il n' en monta pas moins sur le trône. Il parut alors dans la Lithuanie un jeune homme qui prétendait être le prince Demetri échapé à l' assassin. Plusieurs personnes qui l' avaient vû auprès de sa mére, le reconnaissaient à des marques certaines. Il ressemblait parfaitement au prince ; il montrait la croix d' or enrichie de pierreries qu' on avait attachée au cou de Demetri à son baptême. Un palatin de Sandomir le reconnut d' abord pour le fils de Jean Basilide, et pour le véritable czar. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_jean_basilide", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jean Basilide", "Jean Basilides" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q159_russie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q159", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Russie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Jean Basilide soupçonnant son fils d’ une conspiration pendant le siége de Pleskou…”. The phrase “pendant le siége” indicates that Jean Basilide was physically present in the city of Pleskou, which lies within Russia, during the siege. Since the document is dated 1756 and the event occurred before that date, this provides direct evidence that Jean Basilide was indeed in Russia at some point prior to publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Jean Basilide soupçonnant son fils d’ une conspiration pendant le siége de Pleskou,” indicating his presence at a siege of Plesk, which is located in present‑day Russia. However, the text provides no explicit date for this event or any indication that it occurred within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only temporal reference given is the year “1756” itself, but there is no mention of a specific month or day. Because the required evidence—an explicit presence in Russia during the period from roughly July 28 to August 28, 1756—is absent, we cannot confirm that Jean Basilide was physically present at the specified location within the mandated timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_demetrius", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Demetrius", "Demetri", "prince Demetri" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_uglis", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Uglis" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Fédor régna ; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” This sentence explicitly reports that the prince Demetri was physically confined (i.e., present) in the village of Uglis at some point prior to the document’s publication date. No part of the text contradicts this claim, and the location “Uglis” is directly identified as a place where Demetri was held. Therefore there is clear evidence that Demetrius/Demetri was indeed present in Uglis before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text states that “Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” This indicates that Prince Demetri was physically present in Uglis at some point, but it provides no explicit date or temporal marker. The only date mentioned in the document is the publication year (1756), and there is no indication that this confinement occurred within the 30‑day window preceding the publication. Because the required evidence of a specific presence with a date inside the specified timeframe is absent, we cannot confirm that Demetri was present at Uglis during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_demetrius", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Demetrius", "Demetri", "prince Demetri" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q159_russie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q159", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Russie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Fédor régna ; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” This indicates that the prince named Demetri was physically confined in a village called Uglis, which is part of the Russian territory (the context concerns Russian princes). The text does not provide any contradictory evidence that he was elsewhere; it merely reports his confinement. Since the document’s publication date is 1756 and the event described occurs before that, we have clear evidence that Demetrius was present in Russia at some point prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” It does not specify that this village is located in Russia, nor does it provide any date or time reference linking Demetri’s presence to the 30‑day window ending on 1756. The only mention of “Russie” in the text concerns Fédor and earlier events, not Demetri. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Demetri was physically present in Russia within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_fedor", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Fédor", "czar Fédor" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_uglis", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Uglis" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Fédor régna ; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” This indicates that the prince Demetri was confined in the village of Uglis, but it does not mention Fédor’s presence there. The text only notes that Fédor ruled elsewhere and that he had a brother (Demetri) who was held captive. There is no explicit statement or implication that Fédor himself visited or resided at Uglis before 1756. Therefore, the document provides no evidence of his physical presence in that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Fédor régna ; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” This indicates that Fédor was the reigning czar, but it does not say he himself was present in or at the village of Uglis. The only mention of Uglis is linked to Demetri’s confinement, not to Fédor’s presence there. Moreover, no date within the text (e.g., a specific year or month) is provided that would place any event near the publication date of 1756. Because the text lacks explicit evidence that Fédor was physically present at Uglis during the 30‑day window preceding 1756, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_demetrius", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Demetrius", "Demetri", "prince Demetri" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q37_lithuanie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q37", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Lithuanie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text reports that “Fédor régna ; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére,” indicating that Prince Demetri was held in a separate location, not Lithuania. Later it describes “Il parut alors dans la Lithuanie un jeune homme qui prétendait être le prince Demetri échappé à l’ assassin.” This refers to a look‑alike who pretended to be the prince, not the prince himself. No passage states that the actual Prince Demetri was physically present in Lithuania before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at the specified location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage reports that “un jeune homme … qui prétendait être le prince Demetri” appeared in Lithuania after an assassination. This indicates a claim of identity and presence, but it does not state that Prince Demetri himself was physically present there; it merely describes someone who claimed to be him. The only other mention of Demetri is that he was confined in the village Uglis, which is unrelated to Lithuania. No date or explicit statement places the prince in Lithuania within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). Therefore there is no direct evidence that the person named “Demetrius/Demetri” was present at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_fedor", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Fédor", "czar Fédor" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q159_russie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q159", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Russie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly names “Fédor” as a czar who “régna” (ruled) and that he had married the sister of another prince. Being a czar implies that Fedor was physically present in Russia, governing from its capital. The text also notes his appearance later in Lithuania, which is within the Russian sphere, further confirming his presence there before 1756. Thus there is direct evidence that Fedor was in Russia prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Fédor régna” and notes that the false Demetri agitated in Russia after Jean Basilides’ death, but it does not state that Fédor himself was physically present in Russia during any time period. The only reference to a location is the mention of Russia as a place where events occurred, not as a place where Fédor was located. Since there is no explicit statement that Fédor was in Russia within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756), we cannot confirm his presence at that location.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_theodor", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Théodor" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q159_russie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q159", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Russie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the political situation in a court and mentions that “Fédor régna; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis…”. It does not state that Théodor was present in Russia or any other location. The only reference to Russia is that the false Demetrius agitated there after Jean Basilides’ death, but this concerns a different individual (Demetri) and provides no indication of Théodor’s presence. Consequently, there is no textual evidence that Théodor was physically in Russia before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies Théodor as one of the czar’s sons but provides no explicit statement that he was physically present in Russia during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The text merely names him and mentions his later confinement in a village, without linking this to any specific location or timeframe. Consequently there is no direct evidence of Théodor’s presence in Russia within the required period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_theodor", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Théodor" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_uglis", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Uglis" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text states that “Fédor régna ; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” This indicates that only Demetri was confined in the village of Uglis; there is no mention of Théodor being present or visiting that location. The passage does not provide any evidence that Théodor ever went to Uglis before 1756, and thus we cannot confirm his presence at that place.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states: “Fédor régna ; Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” This indicates that **Demetri** (not Théodor) was confined in the village of Uglis. There is no mention of Théodor being present at Uglis, nor any date or time reference linking him to that location within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore, the text provides no evidence that Théodor was physically present in Uglis during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_boris", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Boris" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q37_lithuanie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q37", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Lithuanie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Il parut alors dans la Lituanie un jeune homme qui prétendait être le prince Demetri…” This describes a separate individual who appeared in Lithuania, not Boris himself. Earlier it states that Boris was suspected of poisoning the czar and remained on the throne; there is no mention of him traveling to or being present in Lithuania at any time before 1756. Consequently, the text provides no evidence that Boris physically visited Lithuania prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "TRUE", "CORRECT_isAt": false, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Il sembla alors dans la Lituanie un jeune homme qui prétendait être le prince Demetri…” This indicates that Boris himself was physically present in Lithuania at the time of his appearance, which is described as occurring after he poisoned Fedor. The document’s publication date is 1756, so any event mentioned within the text is presumed to have taken place within that year. Since no explicit date is given but the narrative places Boris in Lithuania during the same period, it falls within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (i.e., from roughly August 24 to September 23, 1756). Therefore, there is textual evidence of his presence at the specified location within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_fedor", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Fédor", "czar Fédor" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q37_lithuanie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q37", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Lithuanie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that “Il parut alors dans la Lithonie un jeune homme qui prétendait être le prince Demetri…” This refers to a different individual, not Fédor himself. Earlier in the text it states that “Fédor régna; Demetri fut confiné…”, indicating Fédor was the reigning czar but does not mention any visit or presence of him in Lithuania. There is no sentence or clause linking Fédor to Lithuania before 1756, nor any date or event that would place him there. Therefore the text provides no evidence that Fédor, czar Fédor, was physically present in Lithuania prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “un jeune homme” appeared in Lithuania, but it does not explicitly state that this individual was the czar Fédor himself. The text merely describes a look‑alike who pretended to be the prince Demetri; there is no explicit mention of Fédor’s presence or any date linking his appearance to Lithuania within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication in 1756. Consequently, the evidence does not satisfy the requirement for a direct, dated confirmation of Fédor’s physical presence at that location.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_jean_basilide", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jean Basilide", "Jean Basilides" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_uglis", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Uglis" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jean Basilide only in the context of a siege at Pleskou (“Jean Basilide soupçonnant son fils d’une conspiration pendant le siége de Pleskou”). It does not mention him traveling to or being present in Uglis. The only reference to Uglis is about Demetri, who was confined there with the czarina. Since no text indicates Jean Basilide ever visited Uglis before the document’s publication date (1756), we have no evidence of his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses events involving Jean Basilide and Pierre, but it does not state that Jean Basilide was physically present at the village named **Uglis**. The only reference to Uglis is in a sentence about Demetri being confined there: “Demetri fut confiné dans un village nommé Uglis avec la czarine sa mére.” There is no mention of Jean Basilide’s presence or any activity at that location, nor any date that would place him there within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore, the text provides no evidence that Jean Basilide was present in Uglis during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_pierre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pierre" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q159_russie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q159", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Russie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the actions of Jean Basilide and his son, as well as Pierre’s condemnation of his own son to death. It does not state or imply that Pierre himself was physically present in Russia at any time before 1756. The only reference to a location is “siége de Pleskou,” which refers to a siege involving Jean Basilide and his son, not to Pierre’s presence there. Consequently, the text provides no evidence of Pierre being in Russia prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Pierre” only in the context of condemning a prince’s son; it does not state that he was physically present anywhere, let alone in Russia. The only mention of “Russia” occurs later concerning Demetrius and is unrelated to Pierre. Since there is no explicit evidence that Pierre was in Russia within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_sandomir", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Sandomir" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q37_lithuanie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q37", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Lithuanie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Un palatin de Sandomir le reconnut d’ abord…” indicating that the palatin is from Sandomir, a location in Poland, and that he recognized someone at his court. It does not state or imply that Sandomir itself was physically present in Lithuania; it merely mentions a person from Sandomir acting elsewhere. The only reference to Lithuania concerns a young man who appears there, not the place Sandomir. Therefore there is no textual evidence that the entity “Sandomir” (the location) was at Lithuanian before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “Un palatin de Sandomir le reconnut d' abord…”, indicating that a person from Sandomir recognized someone, but it does not state that this individual was physically present in Lithuania at any time. No other part of the passage mentions Sandomir being in Lithuania or provides a date that would place such an event within 30 days before the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that the person from Sandomir was present in Lithuania during the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_boris_gudenou", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Boris - Gudenou" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_uglis", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Uglis" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Un premier ministre nommé Boris - Gudenou … envoya un officier dans le village où était élevé le jeune Demetri, avec ordre de le tuer.” This indicates that Boris dispatched an officer to Uglis; it does not say that Boris himself went there. No other part of the text mentions Boris being in Uglis or visiting the location. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Boris was physically present at Uglis before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies Boris ‑ Gudenou as a minister who “envoya un officier dans le village où était élevé le jeune Demetri” (sent an officer to Uglis). It does not state that Boris himself was physically present in Uglis, nor does it provide any date or temporal marker linking his presence to the event within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication in 1756. Because the text lacks explicit evidence of Boris being at Uglis during that period, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_ministre_boris", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "ministre Boris" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_uglis", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Uglis" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Un premier ministre nommé Boris … envoya un officier dans le village où était élevé le jeune Demetri.” This indicates that Boris issued an order to send someone to Uglis, but it does not explicitly say that Boris himself went there. The text only reports his action of dispatching an officer; it provides no direct mention of Boris’s physical presence in the village before 1756. Therefore there is no explicit evidence supporting the claim that minister Boris was physically present at Uglis prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Un premier ministre nommé Boris … envoya un officier dans le village où était élevé le jeune Demetri.” This indicates that an officer was dispatched to Uglis, but it does not say that Boris himself went there. There is no explicit mention of Boris being present at Uglis within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore the criteria for presence are not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv-NIL_boris_gudenou", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Boris - Gudenou" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk1041.tsv_Q159_russie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q159", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Russie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Boris ‑ Gudenou as “un premier ministre” of the court that ruled in Russia (the text mentions “la Russie” and later “la Lithanie”). Being a prime minister implies he held an official position within the Russian administration, which requires physical presence at the seat of power. The narrative also notes his actions—such as persuading the czar and sending an officer to a village in Russia—indicating that he was operating from within Russia before 1756. Therefore there is explicit textual evidence that Boris ‑ Gudenou was physically present in Russia prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "Prediction(\n reasoning=None,\n classification=None\n)", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Perouse Voyage chunk107", "time_period": "1797", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1797", "language": "fr", "text": " Il découvre : l' île de Pâque, par 27 degrés 4 minutes de latitude sud, et 265 degrés 42 minutes de longitude orientale du méridien de Ténériffe, suivant l' auteur des vies des gouverneurs de Batavia ; ce qui répond à 113 degrés 18 minutes de longitude à l' ouest du méridien de Paris : île habitée, de seize lieues hollandaises de circuit, et remarquable par des statues ou figures colossales élevées en grand nombre sur ses côtes ; ( elle a été reconnue depuis par Cook, qui l' a trouvée par 27 degrés 5 minutes de latitude, et 112 degrés 6 minutes de longitude à l' ouest de Paris, et qui l' a nommée Easter ou Pâque : elle a été vue aussi en 1770, par les espagnols, qui la placent par 27 degrés 6 minutes de latitude, et 268 degrés 19 minutes de longitude, méridien de Ténériffe, ce qui répond à 110 degrés 41 minutes de notre longitude, à l' ouest de Paris ; ces derniers lui ont donné le nom de San - Carlos ). Charls - Hof, ou cour de Charles, par 15 degrés 45 minutes de latitude sud, et après huit cents lieues de course depuis l' île de Pâque ; ( suivant la relation française de ce voyage, c' est une petite île rase, avec une espèce de lac dans l' intérieur. Roggewein crut que c' était l' île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten, et la relation hollandaise ne lui assigne ni latitude ni longitude : on l' a placée sur la carte relativement à sa distance des îles Pernicieuses, qui en sont à douze lieues à l' ouest, et dont la position est aujourd'hui connue ). Les îles Pernicieuses, par 14 degrés 41 minutes de latitude sud, et à douze lieues hollandaises à l' ouest de Charls - Hof : ce sont quatre îles basses et peuplées, qui ont depuis quatre jusqu' à dix lieues de tour ; ( Roggewein y perdit un vaisseau, ce qui fit donner le nom de Pernicieuse à l' une de ces îles : deux autres furent appelées les deux Frères, et une autre la Soeur ; il y resta cinq hommes de l' équipage, qui désertèrent et qu' on abandonna. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q243375_roggewein", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q243375", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Roggewein" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_chiens", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île des Chiens" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Roggewein crut que c’ était l’ île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten,” indicating only his belief about the location, not a physical visit. No other part of the text mentions Roggewein traveling to or being present on that island before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Roggewein crut que c’était l’île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten,” indicating only his belief about the island’s identity, not that he was physically present there. The text contains no explicit date or time reference linking Roggewein to the island within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). Because the required evidence of presence is absent, we cannot confirm that Roggewein was at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q14452_pâque", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q14452", "loc_mentions_list": [ "île de Pâque", "Pâque", "Easter" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses geographical coordinates and historical explorations of “île de Pâque” but does not mention any individual named **Charles** being present there. The only reference to “Charles” is in the phrase “Charls‑Hof, ou cour de Charles,” which refers to a place (a courtyard or square) rather than a person. No sentence indicates that Charles himself visited or was at Île de Pâque before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at that location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes the island of Île de Pâque (also called Easter) with its latitude/longitude and historical sightings, but it does not mention any individual named “Charles” being present there or visiting within a month before 1797. The only reference to Charles is in the separate phrase “Charls‑Hof,” which refers to a different location and has no connection to Île de Pâque. Since there is no explicit statement that Charles was physically at the island during the required time window, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_schouten", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Schouten" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_chiens", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île des Chiens" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The excerpt states that “Roggewein crut que c’était l’île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten,” indicating that Schouten is merely mentioned as part of the name of an island, not that he himself visited or was physically present there. No other sentence in the text provides any indication of Schouten’s presence at the island before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his physical presence at “île des Chiens” prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Roggewein crut que c’ était l’ île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten,” indicating that Schouten was associated with the island’s name, but it does not provide any explicit statement or date of his physical presence at the island within a 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1797). No temporal reference linking Schouten to the location is given. Therefore we cannot confirm that he was present there in the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_le_maire", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Le Maire" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_pernicieuses", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "îles Pernicieuses" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that Roggewein believed the island “Île des Chiens de Le Maire” belonged to him and Schouten, but it does not state that Le Maire himself ever visited or was present on the islands. The only mention of Le Maire is in the name of the island; there are no references to his physical presence at the Pernicieuse islands before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that Le Maire was physically present at those islands prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes the location of the islands Pernicieuses and notes that “Roggewein crut que c’ était l’ île des Chiens de Le Maire.” This indicates a naming attribution, not an explicit statement that Le Maire himself visited or was present on those islands. No date, time reference, or direct mention of his presence within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication (1797) is provided. Therefore there is no evidence in the text that Le Maire was physically at the islands Pernicieuses during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_le_maire", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Le Maire" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_chiens", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île des Chiens" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Roggewein believed the island was “l’ île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten.” This indicates a naming convention, not a physical presence of the person “Le Maire” at the island. No sentence in the text reports that Le Maire himself visited or was present there before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Roggewein crut que c’ était l’ île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten,” indicating that Roggewein believed the island was associated with Le Maire. However, there is no explicit mention of Le Maire himself being present at or visiting that island within a timeframe close to the publication date (1797). The text provides only a belief or attribution by another person, not evidence of Le Maire’s physical presence. Therefore, we cannot confirm that Le Maire was physically present at “île des Chiens” in the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q7324_cook", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q7324", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cook" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q14452_pâque", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q14452", "loc_mentions_list": [ "île de Pâque", "Pâque", "Easter" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that the island of Pâque (Easter) was “reconnue depuis par Cook, qui l’a trouvée … et qui l’a nommée Easter ou Pâque.” The verb “trouvée” indicates that Cook physically visited and identified the location. Since this discovery occurred prior to the document’s publication date of 1797, it confirms Cook’s presence at the island before that time.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Captain Cook discovered the island, but it does not provide a specific date for his visit or any mention of him being there within 30 days before the document’s publication (1797). The only dates in the text refer to earlier events (e.g., “en 1770” for Spanish sightings) and do not link Cook’s presence at the island to that timeframe. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that Cook was physically present on the island of Pâque within the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q7324_cook", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q7324", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cook" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "ouest de Paris", "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the coordinates and description of an island called “Île de Pâque” in relation to Paris, noting that it lies “à l’ouest du méridien de Paris.” It also states that “Cook, who found it…,” indicating Cook’s discovery but not his physical presence at Paris. The text provides no mention of Cook being in or visiting Paris itself before 1797; it only references the island’s location relative to Paris. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Cook was physically present at “ouest de Paris, Paris” prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage reports that Captain Cook “l’a trouvée” (discovered) an island located “à l’ouest de Paris,” providing its latitude and longitude. However, the text does not contain any explicit date or time reference for Cook’s visit to that location, nor does it state that he was physically present in Paris itself within a 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). The only temporal clue is the mention of the island being “vue aussi en 1770” by Spaniards, which is far outside the required window. Because there is no direct evidence that Cook was at the specified location within the required timeframe, we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_schouten", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Schouten" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q14452_pâque", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q14452", "loc_mentions_list": [ "île de Pâque", "Pâque", "Easter" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that the Dutch navigator Schouten is mentioned as part of a name associated with an island (the “Island of Dogs of Le Maire”), but it does not state that he himself visited or was present at that location. The only reference to Schouten is in a sentence about Roggewein’s belief, which merely identifies the island with his name rather than indicating any physical presence. No other part of the text provides dates, locations, or actions linking Schouten to the island before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence that he was physically present at the island of Pâque (or Easter) prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Schouten” only as part of a place name (“île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten”), indicating that the island was named after him, not that he himself visited or was present there. No sentence in the text describes Schouten traveling to, being on, or visiting the island of Pâque (or its alternative names). Since the required evidence of his presence at the specified location within 30 days before the publication date is absent, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_schouten", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Schouten" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_pernicieuses", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "îles Pernicieuses" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Roggewein crut que c’ était l’ île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten,” indicating that the Dutch explorer Schouten is associated with those islands. This association implies that Schouten had visited or been present at the islands Pernicieuses prior to the document’s publication date (1797). The text does not provide a direct statement of his presence, but it explicitly links him to the location in historical context, which satisfies the requirement for evidence of physical presence before 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Roggewein crut que c’ était l’ île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten,” indicating that Schouten is associated with a different island (the “île des Chiens”). The text separately describes the islands Pernicieuses, but does not link Schouten to them. There is no explicit statement that Schouten was physically present at the islands Pernicieuses within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore, the required evidence for presence is absent.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_charls_hof", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charls - Hof" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q14452_pâque", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q14452", "loc_mentions_list": [ "île de Pâque", "Pâque", "Easter" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage provides geographic coordinates for the island of Pâque and then describes “Charls‑Hof” as a separate location that is 800 leagues away from Pâque (“par 15 degrés 45 minutes de latitude sud, et après huit cents lieues de course depuis l’ île de Pâque”). This indicates that Charls‑Hof is not situated on or near the island; it is a distinct place at a considerable distance. The text contains no statement that any person named “Charls‑Hof” visited, was present in, or traveled to the island of Pâque before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that the person was physically present at that location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes the island of Pâque (Easter) with its coordinates, noting that it has been observed by various explorers. It then mentions “Charls‑Hof” as a separate location: “Charls‑Hof, ou cour de Charles, par 15 degrés 45 minutes de latitude sud, et après huit cents lieues de course depuis l’ île de Pâque.” This indicates that Charls‑Hof is located *after* the island of Pâque, not that it was present at or visited the island. The text contains no statement indicating that Charls‑Hof itself was physically present on the island within a month before the publication date (1797). Therefore there is no explicit evidence of presence meeting the criteria.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q40846_ténériffe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q40846", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Ténériffe" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the island of Pâque and its coordinates relative to Ténériffe, as well as the French location “Charls‑Hof” (or cour de Charles) which is described in terms of latitude and distance from Pâque. The text contains no mention of a person named Charles being at Ténériffe or any activity there. It only notes that Charls‑Hof is a separate place in France, not linked to the island. Since there is no evidence that Charles was physically present on Ténériffe before 1797, we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the coordinates, history, and naming of islands such as Île de Pâque, Charls‑Hof, and Pernicieuse. It contains no mention of a person named “Charles” being present at Ténériffe or any other location near that island. The only reference to Charles is in the title “Charls‑Hof,” which refers to a different place (likely a typo for “Charls‑Hof”) and does not indicate his presence at Ténériffe. Since there is no explicit statement linking Charles to Ténériffe within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date, we cannot confirm his physical presence there.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_charls_hof", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charls - Hof" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q40846_ténériffe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q40846", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Ténériffe" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage provides coordinates and descriptions for several islands (Île de Pâque, Pernicieuse, etc.) but does not state that “Charls‑Hof” is situated on Ténériffe or that the person associated with Charls‑Hof was physically present there. The only reference to Charls‑Hof is its location relative to Île de Pâque (800 leagues away) and its description as a small, rased island. No mention of Charls‑Hof being on Ténériffe or any visit by the person to that location appears in the text. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that Charls‑Hof was at Ténériffe before 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the island of Pâque (also called Easter) and its coordinates relative to Ténériffe, but it does not mention Charls‑Hof being at that location. The only reference to Charls‑Hof is a separate description (“Charls - Hof, ou cour de Charles”) with its own latitude/longitude, unrelated to Ténériffe. No date or explicit statement places Charls‑Hof in Ténériffe within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). Therefore there is no evidence that Charls‑Hof was physically present at Ténériffe during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_charls_hof", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charls - Hof" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_chiens", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "île des Chiens" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the island of “Île des Chiens” and mentions that Roggewein believed it to be that island, but it does not state that “Charls‑Hof” ever visited or was physically present there. No sentence in the text links Charls‑Hof with the location; instead, Charls‑Hof is only referenced as a separate place (a court or square). Therefore there is no evidence of Charls‑Hof being at Île des Chiens before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the location of “île des Chiens” in relation to other islands and mentions that Roggewein thought it was that island, but it does not state that Charls‑Hof itself was present there or provide any date indicating such presence. The text only provides geographic coordinates and distances; there is no explicit statement that Charls‑Hof visited or was at the island within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication in 1797. Therefore, the required evidence for presence is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_san_carlos", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "San - Carlos" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q14452_pâque", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q14452", "loc_mentions_list": [ "île de Pâque", "Pâque", "Easter" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the island of Pâque (Easter) and its geographical coordinates, noting that it was discovered by various explorers such as Cook and later visited by Spanish ships who named it “San‑Carlos.” However, the text does not identify any individual person named San‑Carlos; it merely records a place name given to the island. There is no mention of a traveler or explorer bearing that name visiting the island before 1797. Consequently, there is no evidence in the document that the person “San‑Carlos” was physically present at the specified location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes the island of Pâque and mentions that “these last have been given the name San‑Carlos.” It does not state that any individual, including a person named San‑Carlos, was physically present at or visited the island. There is no explicit mention of a visit, arrival, or presence within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore, there is no evidence to confirm that the person was present at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q243375_roggewein", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q243375", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Roggewein" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_charls_hof", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "ouest de Charls - Hof" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that Roggewein “cru” (believed) the island to be located 12 leagues west of Charls‑Hof, but it does not state that he himself was physically present at that location. The text only describes his belief and the cartographic placement; there is no mention of a visit or presence by Roggewein in the area before the document’s publication date (1797). Therefore there is no evidence supporting his physical presence at “ouest de Charls‑Hof”.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the geography of several islands and notes that “Roggewein crut que c’ était l’ île des Chiens de Le Maire et Schouten,” indicating his belief about the island’s identity, but it does not state that he was physically present at or near “ouest de Charls - Hof.” No date is associated with any such presence, and there is no explicit mention of him being in that location within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). Therefore we cannot confirm his physical presence at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv-NIL_san_carlos", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "San - Carlos" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk107.tsv_Q40846_ténériffe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q40846", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Ténériffe" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the naming of an island by Spanish explorers and provides its coordinates. It states that “ces derniers lui ont donné le nom de San‑Carlos,” meaning the explorers gave the name to the island itself, not that a person named San‑Carlos was present at Ténériffe. There is no mention of any individual named San‑Carlos visiting or being in Ténériffe before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that the person “San‑Carlos” was physically present at Ténériffe prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies “San‑Carlos” as the name given to an island by the Spaniards who visited Ténériffe, but it does not provide a specific date or time reference for that visit. The document’s only temporal marker is the publication year (1797), and there is no indication that the Spanish presence at Ténériffe occurred within the 30‑day window preceding that date. Because the required evidence of a precise, recent presence is absent, we cannot confirm that San‑Carlos was physically present at Ténériffe in the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk783", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Le siége et la défense de Leyde sont un des plus grands témoignages de ce que peuvent la constance et la liberté. Les hollandais firent précisément la même chose qu' on leur a vû hazarder en 1672 lorsque Louis XIV était aux portes d' Amsterdam ; ils percèrent les digues ; les eaux de l' Issel, de la Meuse, et de l' océan inondèrent les campagnes ; et une flotte de deux - cent bateaux aporta du secours dans la ville par - dessus les ouvrages des espagnols. Il y eut un autre prodige ; c' est que les assiégeans osèrent continuer le siége et entreprendre de saigner cette vaste inondation. Il n' y avait point d' exemple dans l' histoire ni d' une telle ressource dans des assiégés, ni d' une telle opiniâtreté dans des assiégeans ; mais cette opiniâtreté fut inutile, et Leyde célèbre encor aujourdhui tous les ans le jour de sa délivrance. Il ne faut pas oublier que les habitans se servirent de pigeons dans ce siége pour donner des nouvelles au prince d' Orange : c' est une pratique commune en Asie. Quel était donc ce gouvernement si sage et si vanté de Philippe II lorsqu' on voit dans ce tems -là même ses troupes se mutiner en Flandre faute de payement, saccager la ville d' Anvers, et que toutes les provinces des Pays - Bas, sans consulter ni lui, ni son gouverneur, font un traité de pacification avec les révoltés, publient une amnistie, rendent les prisonniers, font démolir des forteresses, et ordonnent qu' on abattra la fameuse statue du duc d' Albe, trophée que son orgueil avait élevé à sa cruauté, et qui était encor debout dans la citadelle d' Anvers, dont le roi était le maître ? Après la mort du grand commandeur de Requesens, Philippe qui pouvait encor essayer de remettre le calme dans les Pays - Bas par sa présence, y envoye Don Juan D' Autriche son frére, prince célèbre dans l' Europe par la fameuse victoire de Lépante remportée sur les turcs, et par son ambition qui lui avait fait tenter d' être roi de Tunis. Philippe n' aimait pas Don Juan ; il craignait sa gloire, et se défiait de ses desseins. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q7742_louis", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q7742", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Louis XIV" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q727_amsterdam", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q727", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amsterdam" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “en 1672 lorsque Louis XIV était aux portes d’ Amsterdam” – i.e., in 1672, Louis XIV was at the gates of Amsterdam. Since 1672 is well before the document’s publication date of 1756, this provides direct evidence that Louis XIV physically occupied or was present at Amsterdam prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Louis XIV était aux portes d’ Amsterdam,” indicating he was near Amsterdam at some point in the past. However, it provides no specific date or temporal marker that places this presence within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). Without an explicit date or a clear reference to a timeframe inside that window, we cannot confirm his physical presence there during the required period. Therefore the evidence is insufficient for a positive classification.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_issel", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Issel" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q41986_meuse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41986", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Meuse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes the flooding of the “Issel” and the “Meuse” rivers during a siege, but it does not state that any individual named Issel was physically present at Meuse or elsewhere before 1756. There is no mention of a person traveling, residing, or being in Meuse; only the river names are used as geographic references. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions the river “Issel” as a source of water that flooded the area, but it does not state that any person named “Issel” was physically present at the Meuse or elsewhere in the region. There is no explicit date or temporal marker linking such an event to the 30‑day window ending on 1756. Consequently, there is no evidence in the text that the person “Issel” was present at the location “Meuse” within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe", "Philippe II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q48_asie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q48", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Asie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the siege of Leyde and mentions a practice common in Asia for using pigeons to send news, but it does not state that Philippe II himself was physically present there. The only reference to Philippe is his sending of Don Juan from the Netherlands, indicating he remained in Europe. Therefore there is no textual evidence that Philippe II visited or was in Asia before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Philippe II’s actions in the Netherlands and his relationship with Don Juan, but it contains no statement that he was physically present in Asia during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). The only reference to Asia is a comment about a practice common there (“c’est une pratique commune en Asie”), not an indication of Philippe’s presence. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Philippe II was in Asia within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_juan", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Don Juan" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q40_autriche", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q40", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Autriche" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Philippe “envoye Don Juan D' Autriche son frère,” indicating that Don Juan is a prince of Austria who was physically present there to send his brother. This implies that Don Juan had been in Autriche at some time prior to the document’s publication date (1756). The text provides no contradictory information, so we can conclude that the presence evidence exists.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Philippe sent “Don Juan D’ Autriche” his brother, indicating Don Juan’s origin or affiliation with Autriche, but it does not state that he was physically present in Autriche within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). No explicit mention of a visit, stay, or event involving Don Juan in Autriche during that period is provided. Therefore there is no direct evidence satisfying the requirement for presence at the specified location and time.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe", "Philippe II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q29999_pays_-_bas", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q29999", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pays - Bas" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a siege of Leyde and references the mutiny of Spanish troops in Flanders, but it does not state that Philippe II himself was physically present in the Netherlands at any time before 1756. The only mention of him is as a king concerned with his brother Don Juan; there are no explicit statements about his presence or visits to Pays‑Bas. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his physical presence in the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses a historical siege and mentions “Philippe” only as a subject or speaker, without providing any explicit date or location tied to his physical presence in the Netherlands during the relevant timeframe. The sentence “Philippe qui pouvait encor essayer de remettre le calme dans les Pays‑Bas par sa présence…” indicates that Philippe was physically present in the region at some point, but it does not supply a specific date nor confirm that this event occurred within 30 days before the publication date of 1756. Since no explicit temporal marker (e.g., “in early January 1756”) is attached to his presence, we cannot verify that he was in the Netherlands during the required window. Therefore there is insufficient evidence to confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_requesens", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "commandeur de Requesens" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q29999_pays_-_bas", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q29999", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pays - Bas" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Après la mort du grand commandeur de Requesens…” and then describes Philippe’s subsequent actions in the Netherlands. It does not state that the commander himself was present in the country; it merely reports his death and Philippe’s later presence. No mention of travel, residence, or any activity by the commander in the Pays‑Bas before 1756 is found. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting the claim that he was physically present at the location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the death of “le grand commandeur de Requesens” but does not state that he was physically present in the Netherlands (Pays‑Bas) or provide any date that places his presence within 30 days before the document’s publication date (1756). The only temporal reference is the mention of Philippe’s actions, which are unrelated to the commander’s location. Since there is no explicit evidence of the person being in Pays‑Bas during the required time window, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe", "Philippe II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q43631_leyde", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q43631", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Leyde" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the siege and defense of Leyde, noting that “the Dutch did exactly what they had been warned against in 1672 when Louis XIV was at the gates of Amsterdam.” It then refers to Philippe II’s government actions elsewhere (mutiny in Flanders, a treaty with rebels, etc.), but it never states that Philippe himself was physically present in Leyde. The only mention of him is as a historical figure whose policies are described; there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the location before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the siege of Leyde and references “Philippe II” only as a historical figure whose government is being evaluated; it does not state that he was physically present in Leyde, nor does it provide any date or time reference linking him to that location. The text merely notes his troops mutinying elsewhere (“en Flandre”) and the actions of his administration. Since there is no explicit mention of Philippe II’s presence in Leyde within a month before 1756, the required evidence for a positive classification is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_requesens", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "commandeur de Requesens" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_anvers", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "citadelle d' Anvers", "ville d' Anvers" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the death of “le grand commandeur de Requesens” and notes that after his death, Philippe sent Don Juan D’ Autriche to the region. It contains no mention of the commander being present in or visiting the citadelle of Anvers (the city’s citadel). The only reference to the citadelle is in a separate sentence about its statue, unrelated to the commander’s activities. Since there is no textual evidence that the commander was physically at the citadelle before 1756, we conclude that his presence cannot be inferred from the document.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Après la mort du grand commandeur de Requesens, Philippe … envoye Don Juan D' Autriche son frére…”. It does not state that the commander himself was present in the citadelle d’ Anvers or provide any date linking his presence to 1756. The only mention of the citadel is as a location where Philippe sent someone after the commander’s death, implying the commander had already died elsewhere. Since there is no explicit evidence that the commander was physically at the citadel within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1756), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_juan", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Don Juan" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Philippe “envoya Don Juan D’ Autriche son frère” to the Netherlands (the location of the siege). This indicates that Don Juan was physically present in Europe at the time of the events described, which predate the document’s publication date of 1756. Therefore there is explicit evidence that he was in Europe before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Philippe sent Don Juan D’ Autriche as his brother, describing him as a “prince célèbre dans l’Europe”. This indicates Don Juan’s residence or activity in Europe, but it provides no explicit date or time reference. The text does not state when he was present, nor does it tie any event to the 30‑day window ending on the publication date of 1756. Because the required evidence (a specific presence within the last month) is absent, we cannot confirm that Don Juan was physically in Europe during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe", "Philippe II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q40_autriche", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q40", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Autriche" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Philippe … envoye Don Juan D’ Autriche son frére,” indicating that Philippe dispatched a brother from Austria. It does not state that Philippe himself was physically present in Austria; it only mentions the act of sending someone from there. No other part of the text provides any indication that Philippe II visited or was located in Austria before 1756. Therefore, there is no evidence supporting his presence at that location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Philippe … y envoye Don Juan D’ Autriche son frére,” implying that Philippe was in Austria at some point. However, the text contains no explicit temporal marker (date or time reference) that ties this presence to a specific period within 30 days before the document’s publication date of 1756. Without such a date, we cannot confirm that Philippe’s presence in Austria falls inside the required window. Therefore there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the condition.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_requesens", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "commandeur de Requesens" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q40_autriche", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q40", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Autriche" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Après la mort du grand commandeur de Requesens… Philippe … envoie Don Juan D’ Autriche son frère.” It describes the commander’s death and subsequent actions, but it contains no mention of him traveling to or being present in Austria. The only reference to Austria is to Don Juan D’ Autriche, not to the commander himself. Since there is no textual evidence that the commander was physically present in Austria before 1756, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions that after the death of the “grand commandeur de Requesens” Philippe sent Don Juan D’ Autriche from Austria, but it does not state that the commandeur himself was present in Austria or at any time within 30 days before the document’s publication date (1756). There is no explicit mention of his presence in Austria, nor a date that would place him there. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location during the required window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_issel", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Issel" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q727_amsterdam", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q727", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Amsterdam" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a military operation where “les eaux de l’ Issel, de la Meuse, et de l’ océan inondèrent les campagnes.” This sentence refers to the flow of water from the river Issel and does not mention any person or entity being physically present in Amsterdam. The only reference to Amsterdam is that Louis XIV was “aux portes d’ Amsterdam,” but there is no indication that the place named “Issel” itself was located there or that anyone associated with it visited Amsterdam. Consequently, the text provides no evidence of the presence of “Issel” at Amsterdam before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the siege of Leyde, noting that the waters of the **Issel** (and other rivers) flooded the countryside. It does not state that anyone from or was present in the city of **Amsterdam**. The only reference to Amsterdam is “Louis XIV était aux portes d’ Amsterdam,” which describes a location of the French king, not any presence of Issel there. Since no sentence links the person “Issel” with the location “Amsterdam” within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756), the required evidence is absent. Therefore we cannot confirm that Issel was physically present at Amsterdam in that timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q7742_louis", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q7742", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Louis XIV" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q41986_meuse", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q41986", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Meuse" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “quand Louis XIV était aux portes d’ Amsterdam ; ils percèrent les digues ; les eaux de l’ Issel, de la Meuse, et de l’ océan inondèrent les campagnes.” This sentence describes a military action (the breach of dikes) and the flooding of several waterways. The phrase “à la porte d’ Amsterdam” indicates Louis XIV’s physical presence in that region, but it does not state or imply that he himself was at the Meuse itself. There is no mention of him traveling to, visiting, or being present at the Meuse before 1756. Therefore there is no direct evidence linking his presence to the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the siege of Leyden and mentions that “Louis XIV était aux portes d’ Amsterdam.” This indicates Louis XIV’s presence in Amsterdam, not in Meuse. The text contains no reference to Louis XIV being at Meuse, nor does it provide a date within 30 days before the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Louis XIV was physically present at Meuse during the required time window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_juan", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Don Juan" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q29999_pays_-_bas", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q29999", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pays - Bas" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Philippe “envoya Don Juan D' Autriche son frère” to the Netherlands (“y envoye …”). This indicates that Don Juan was physically present in the Dutch lands at the time of the event, which is before the document’s publication date (1756). The act of sending him there implies his presence and activity within the region. Therefore we have direct textual evidence supporting his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Philippe sent “Don Juan D’ Autriche” to the Netherlands (“y envoye Don Juan … son frére”). This indicates that Don Juan was physically present in Pays‑Bas at some point, but it provides no explicit date or temporal marker. The document’s publication date is 1756, so the required window for presence would be from 1755‑12‑16 to 1756‑01‑16. Because the text does not contain a specific date that falls within this 30‑day interval (e.g., “in early January 1756” or similar), we cannot confirm that Don Juan was in Pays‑Bas during that period. The only reference is a general statement of his presence, which could have occurred earlier than the window. Therefore there is no explicit evidence meeting the criteria.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe", "Philippe II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_anvers", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "citadelle d' Anvers", "ville d' Anvers" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Philippe II as “le roi” and notes that the citadelle d’Anvers was under his rule (“dont le roi était le maître”). This indicates he held political authority over the city, but it does not provide any explicit statement that he physically visited or was present at the citadel. Moreover, Philippe II died in 1660, so any physical presence would have ended before the document’s publication date of 1756. The text contains no mention of him being there, only his role as ruler. Therefore there is no direct evidence that he was physically present at the citadel before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the mutiny and sacking of the city of Anvers by Philippe’s troops, but it does not state that Philippe himself was physically present at the citadelle d’Anvers during any time period. No explicit mention of his presence in the text, nor a date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1756). Therefore there is no evidence to confirm his presence at the specified location within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe", "Philippe II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk783.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the actions of “Philippe II” during a period when his troops were mutinied in Flanders (“ses troupes se mutiner en Flandre”). This indicates that Philippe was physically present in Europe (specifically in Flanders) at some time before the document’s publication date of 1756. The text does not merely reference him as a ruler; it describes events involving his presence and actions, which satisfies the requirement for evidence of physical presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses historical actions of Philippe II in the context of 1672, but it does not provide any explicit statement that he was physically present in Europe within a month preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to his presence is “Philippe qui pouvait encore essayer de remettre le calme dans les Pays‑Bas par sa présence,” which merely indicates that he could have been there, without confirming an actual visit or location. No dates are given in the text that would place him in Europe within 30 days before 1756. Therefore, there is no evidence to satisfy the requirement of a documented presence at the specified location and time window.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk409", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Il n' y eut que l' arriére - ban, composé des arrière - petits vassaux, qui resta sujet encor à servir dans les occasions. On s' étonne qu' après tant de désastres la France eût tant de ressources et d' argent. Mais un pays riche par ses denrées, ne cesse jamais de l' être, quand la culture n' est pas abandonnée. Les guerres civiles ébranlent le corps de l' état, et ne le détruisent point. Les meurtres et les saccagements, qui désolent des familles, en enrichissent d' autres. Les négocians deviennent d' autant plus habiles qu' il faut plus d' art pour se sauver parmi tant d' orages. Jacques Coeur en est un grand exemple. Il avait établi le plus grand commerce qu' aucun particulier de l' Europe eût jamais embrassé. Il n' y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l' égalât. Jacques Coeur avait trois - cent facteurs en Italie et dans le levant. Il prêta deux - cent - mille écus d' or au roi, sans quoi on n' aurait jamais repris la Normandie. Son industrie était plus utile pendant la paix, que Dunois et la pucelle ne l' avaient été pendant la guerre. C' est une grande tache peut - être à la mémoire de Charles VII qu' on ait persécuté un homme si nécessaire. On n' en sait point le sujet : car qui sait les secrets ressorts des fautes, et des injustices des hommes. Le roi le fit mettre en prison, et le parlement lui fit son procès. On ne put rien prouver, contre lui, sinon qu' il avait fait rendre à un turc un esclave chrêtien, lequel avait quitté et trahi son maître, et qu' il avait fait vendre des armes au soudan d' égypte. Sur ces deux actions, dont l' une était permise, et l' autre vertueuse, il fut condamné à perdre ses biens. Il trouva dans ses commis plus de droiture que dans les courtisans qui l' avaient perdu. Ils se cotisèrent presque tous pour l' aider dans sa disgrace. Jacques Coeur alla continuer son commerce en Chypre, et n' eut jamais le courage de revenir dans son ingrate patrie, quoiqu' il y fût rapellé. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_cosme_de_medicis", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cosme De Médicis" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that after Jacques Coeur, “il n’ y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât.” This indicates that Cosme’s comparable activity took place in the same European context (Italy and France). Moreover, historically Cosme de Médicis was an Italian banker operating throughout Europe. Therefore there is evidence that he was physically present in Europe before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities and notes that “Il n’y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât.” This sentence only indicates that Cosme matched Coeur in trade; it does not state or imply any physical presence of Cosme in Europe, nor provide a date or location tied to him. The text contains no explicit mention of Cosme being in Europe within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no evidence that he was physically present at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q461757_jacques_coeur", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q461757", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jacques Coeur" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q644636_chypre", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q644636", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chypre" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text contains the sentence “Jacques Coeur alla continuer son commerce en Chypre, et n’ eut jamais le courage de revenir dans son ingrate patrie, quoiqu’ il y fût rapellé.” This indicates that Jacques Coeur was actively engaged in trade on Cyprus and remained there before being recalled. The statement implies his physical presence at the island prior to the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is explicit evidence that he was present at Chypre before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Jacques Coeur alla continuer son commerce en Chypre,” indicating he was engaged in trade there at some point. However, the text contains no explicit date or temporal marker that places his presence in Cyprus within 30 days before the document’s publication date of 1756. Without a specific date reference (e.g., “en 1756” or a month/year), we cannot confirm that he was physically present at Chypre during that window. Therefore, there is no evidence to satisfy the requirement for presence in the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q461757_jacques_coeur", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q461757", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jacques Coeur" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Jacques Coeur “avait établi le plus grand commerce qu’aucun particulier de l’Europe eût jamais embrassé,” indicating his presence and activity within European territories. It also notes he continued his trade in Cyprus, which is geographically part of Europe. Both statements confirm that Coeur was physically present in Europe before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is direct textual evidence supporting his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions Jacques Coeur’s activities and his factors in Italy, but it contains no explicit statement that he was physically present in Europe during the 30‑day period ending on 1756. There are no dates or temporal references tied to a specific event in that window, so we cannot confirm his presence at the required location within the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q461757_jacques_coeur", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q461757", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jacques Coeur" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Il avait trois‑cent facteurs en Italie et dans le levant.” The term “facteurs” refers to agents or representatives who operate in a region, implying that Jacques Coeur was physically present there (or at least had his business presence) before the document’s publication date of 1756. This explicit mention provides direct evidence of his presence in Italy prior to 1756. The later reference to continuing commerce in Cyprus does not contradict this earlier claim; it merely indicates a different location for subsequent activity.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text states that Jacques Coeur “avait trois‑cent facteurs en Italie,” indicating he had agents there and was active in the region. However, it does not provide any explicit date or time reference linking this activity to a specific period within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). Without a dated event that falls between roughly August 24 and September 23, 1756, we cannot confirm his physical presence in Italy during that interval. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the required criteria.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_cosme_de_medicis", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cosme De Médicis" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s activities and mentions “Il n’ y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât,” but it does not state that Cosme himself was physically present in Italy at any time before 1756. The text only notes his commercial achievements; there is no explicit reference to him being in Italy, nor any date or event linking him to the location. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Cosme De Médicis was in Italy prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities and notes that “Il n’ y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât.” This sentence merely states a comparative relationship between the two individuals; it does not mention any location, nor does it provide a date or indication of Cosme’s presence in Italy. The text contains no explicit evidence that Cosme was physically present in Italy within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no basis to confirm his presence at the specified location and time.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_dunois", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Dunois" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q15878_normandie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q15878", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Normandie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities and mentions “Dunois” only in the context of his industrial usefulness during peace versus war, without indicating any presence or activity in Normandy. There is no mention of Dunois traveling to, residing in, or conducting business in Normandy before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence that Dunois was physically present at Normandy prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Dunois” only in the context of his industrial activity (“son industrie était plus utile pendant la paix, que Dunois et la pucelle ne l’ avaient été pendant la guerre”), but it does not state that he was physically present in Normandy. The only reference to Normandy is about Jacques Coeur’s loan and does not link Dunois to that location or any date. Since there is no explicit evidence of Dunois being in Normandy within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756), we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_cosme_de_medicis", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cosme De Médicis" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q15878_normandie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q15878", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Normandie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities and mentions that “Il n’ y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât.” This indicates a comparison of their achievements, but it does not state or imply any physical presence in Normandy. The only reference to Normandy is the clause “sans quoi on n’ aurait jamais repris la Normandie,” which refers to the loan’s purpose and does not indicate that Cosme himself was there. No other sentence mentions Cosme being in Normandy or traveling there. Therefore, the text provides no evidence of Cosme De Médicis having been physically present at Normandy before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s activities, his debts to the king, and mentions “Normandie” only in the context of a financial transaction (“on n’aurait jamais repris la Normandie”). It does not state that Cosme De Médicis was physically present in Normandy, nor does it provide any date or time reference linking him to that location within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the specified place and time.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_dunois", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Dunois" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities in Italy and his financial contributions to the French crown. It mentions “Dunois” only in the context of comparing his industrial usefulness during peace versus war, without indicating any location or travel. No sentence places Dunois in Italy or references a visit there before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence that he was physically present at the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s activities and mentions that he had “trois‑cent facteurs en Italie et dans le levant.” It does not state that Dunois was present in Italy, nor does it provide any date or event linking Dunois to Italy within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence of Dunois’s presence at the specified location during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q461757_jacques_coeur", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q461757", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jacques Coeur" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q15878_normandie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q15878", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Normandie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes Jacques Coeur’s activities as a merchant operating in Italy and the Levant (Chypre). It notes that his loan to the king helped recover “la Normandie,” but this refers to the region’s economic recovery, not Coeur’s physical presence there. The text explicitly states that he continued his trade abroad and never returned to his native land (“son ingrate patrie”), indicating he was absent from Normandy before 1756. No other part of the document mentions him being physically present in Normandy. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at that location prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities, his loans to the king, and his holdings in Italy and the Levant. It mentions that he lent money “so that they could take back Normandy,” but this is a statement of financial support rather than an explicit claim that Coeur himself was physically present in Normandy at any time. No date or event within the text places him in Normandy during the 30‑day window ending on 1756 (i.e., between 16 April and 17 May 1756). The only reference to Normandy is the clause “sans quoi on n’aurait jamais repris la Normandie,” which refers to a broader outcome of his loan, not to Coeur’s presence. Because the text provides no direct evidence that Jacques Coeur was in Normandy within the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his physical presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles VII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q38_italie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q38", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Italie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities in Italy and mentions that “Il n’y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât.” It also references a historical judgment against Charles VII for alleged persecution, but it contains no statement indicating that Charles VII himself was physically present in Italy. The only reference to Charles VII is the accusation of persecution; there is no mention of him traveling or being in Italy before 1756. Therefore, there is no evidence in the text that Charles VII was at Italy prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities, the state of France under Charles VII, and various political events. It contains no explicit statement that Charles VII himself was in Italy or any mention of his presence there with a date within 30 days before the document’s publication (1756). The only reference to Charles VII is as the reigning monarch, not as an individual physically present in Italy during that period. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles VII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q15878_normandie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q15878", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Normandie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities and his loan to the king for the recovery of Normandy. It explicitly states that “Il prêta deux‑cent‑mille écus d’or au roi, sans quoi on n’aurait jamais repris la Normandie.” This indicates that Coeur lent money to Charles VII so that the kingdom could regain control over Normandy, but it does not state or imply that Charles VII himself was physically present in Normandy at any time before 1756. The text contains no mention of Charles VII’s presence in Normandy; it only references his financial role and the location as a place to be recovered. Therefore there is no direct evidence from the document that Charles VII was in Normandy prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities and does not contain any statement indicating that Charles VII was physically present in Normandie during the period leading up to the publication date (1756). The only reference to Charles VII is a brief mention of his memory, which provides no evidence of presence or location. Since there is no explicit textual evidence of Charles VII being in Normandie within roughly 30 days before 1756, we must conclude that the claim cannot be verified.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_dunois", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Dunois" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities, noting that “Il n’y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât.” It also mentions Dunois only in the context of his industrial output (“son industrie était plus utile pendant la paix…”) and does not provide any indication that Dunois himself was physically present in Europe. No sentence or clause identifies Dunois traveling to, residing in, or being located within Europe before 1756. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting the claim of his presence at the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Dunois” in a comparative context (“… Dunois et la pucelle ne l’ avaient été pendant la guerre”), but it does not provide any explicit statement that he was physically present in Europe, nor does it give a date or location tied to his presence. The only reference to a location is the mention of “Europe” as a generic term for the continent, and there is no indication that Dunois was there at all during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (which would be around August 24, 1756). Because the text lacks any direct evidence of his presence in Europe within that timeframe, we cannot confirm it. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles VII" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the phrase “C’est une grande tache peut‑être à la mémoire de Charles VII qu’on ait persécuté un homme si nécessaire.” This sentence refers to Charles VII as a historical figure whose memory is invoked, indicating that he was a person who lived and operated in Europe. Since Charles VII (r. 1378–1461) was the king of France, his presence in Europe predates the document’s publication date of 1756 by more than two centuries. Therefore there is explicit textual evidence that he was physically present in Europe before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Jacques Coeur and his activities in Italy and elsewhere; it contains a reference to “Charles VII” only as a historical figure whose memory is mentioned, but there is no statement indicating that Charles VII was physically present in Europe or any location. No date or temporal marker near the publication date (1756) accompanies such an event. Therefore the text provides no evidence of Charles VII’s presence in Europe within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_soudan_d_egypte", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "soudan d' égypte" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q644636_chypre", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q644636", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chypre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that Jacques Coeur sold weapons to “soudan d’ égypte,” but it does not state that this person was in Cyprus or that he ever visited the island. The only mention of Cyprus is that Coeur continued his trade there; the soudan’s activity is described separately and has no connection to Cyprus. Therefore there is no textual evidence that “soudan d’ égypte” was physically present at Chypre before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “soudan d' égypte” only in the context of a transaction (“Il avait fait vendre des armes au soudan d' égypte”), with no indication that this person was physically present anywhere, let alone at Chypre. The only reference to Chypre is about Jacques Coeur’s trade activities there, and there is no link between “soudan d' égypte” and that location or any date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence in the text that the person was present at Chypre during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q461757_jacques_coeur", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q461757", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jacques Coeur" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Le roi le fit mettre en prison, et le parlement lui fait son procès.” This indicates that Jacques Coeur was physically present in France at the time of his imprisonment and trial, which would have occurred before the document’s publication date (1756). The text does not provide any contradictory evidence suggesting he was elsewhere; instead it explicitly places him within French institutions. Therefore there is clear textual support for his presence in France prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities and his financial dealings with the French king, but it does not contain any explicit statement that he was physically present in France during the 30‑day window ending on the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to his presence is a negative one: “Il n’ eut jamais le courage de revenir dans son ingrate patrie, quoiqu’ il y fût rapellé,” indicating that he was not there at that time. Since no direct evidence of his presence in France within the required period exists, we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv-NIL_cosme_de_medicis", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cosme De Médicis" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk409.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The excerpt discusses Jacques Coeur’s commercial activities and notes that “Il n’y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât.” This sentence merely states that Cosme matched Coeur’s achievements; it does not describe any physical presence of Cosme in France or elsewhere. The text provides no mention of Cosme traveling to, residing in, or being present at the location “France” before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Cosme De Médicis was physically present in France prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage refers to Cosme De Médicis only as a person who matched Jacques Coeur’s achievements (“Il n’ y eut depuis lui que Cosme De Médicis qui l’ égalât”). It contains no explicit statement that he was physically present in France, nor any date or location tied to his presence. The text is dated 1756 but does not provide evidence of his presence within the required 30‑day window before publication. Therefore there is no direct textual support for Cosme De Médicis being in France during that period.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Esprit Faussete chunk235", "time_period": "1678", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1678", "language": "fr", "text": " Il est vray que ces renoncemens doivent avoir quelque cause legitime, et que les rois feroient tort à leurs successeurs, s' ils retranchoient une province du corps de l' etat sans y être contraints, ou sans y trouver de grands avantages. Mais lors qu' ils ne consentent à ces retranchemens que par necessité, ou pour le bien et l' utilité du royaume, leurs successeurs n' ont aucun sujet de se plaindre d' eux ; et s' ils en ont, la plupart de nos rois auroient eu droit de se plaindre de leurs predecesseurs, particulierement les enfans de Henry Ii qui par le traité de château Cambresy, relâcha et rendit près de deux cens villes ou forteresses. Il faut ajoutter à cela qu' il est difficile de marquer ce point de grandeur dont parle l' auteur qu' on a cité, où les etats étant parvenus, il n' est plus permis aux rois d' en retrancher aucune partie ; parce qu' il ne s' est jamais passé de temps considerable depuis l' établissement de la monarchie, que la France ne se soit accruë par les conquêtes de nos rois, ou n' ait diminué par celles de nos voisins. De plus, les rois de la premiere et seconde race luy ont très - souvent ôté sa grandeur, la partageant entre leurs enfans, et divisant le royaume en plusieurs royaumes. Enfin pour ne pas alleguer toutes les provinces qui ont été desunies de la couronne, il suffit de dire que la Bourgogne l' avoit été par le roy Henry, petit fils de Hugues Capet, en faveur de Robert son frere ; qu' elle y revint sous le roy Jean, qui la donna peu de temps après à Philippe Le Hardy son quatriéme fils ; et qu' après la mort de Charles dernier Duc de Bourgogne, Loüis XI s' en rendit le maître ; de sorte qu' il n' y avoit pas cinquante ans qu' elle étoit réünie à la couronne lorsque François I la voulut ceder. Passons maintenant aux autres pretextes qu' on prend pour se dispenser de la fidelité qu' on doit aux souverains. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q159575_hugues_capet", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q159575", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Hugues Capet" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q1173_bourgogne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1173", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourgogne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “la Bourgogne l’ avoit été par le roy Henry, petit fils de Hugues Capet.” This indicates that the Burgundian territory belonged to Hugues Capet’s son and was transferred by him. Since the Burgundy was part of the French realm under the Capetian dynasty, it is reasonable to infer that the father himself had been physically present in that region at some point before 1678 (e.g., during his reign). The text does not explicitly say he visited, but the fact that he owned and later gave away Burgundy implies he was there as part of his kingdom. Therefore we can conclude that Hugues Capet was indeed physically present in Bourgogne prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions that “la Bourgogne l’ avoit été par le roy Henry, petit fils de Hugues Capet,” indicating that Burgundy was given by Henry (the son of Hugues Capet). It does not state that Hugues Capet himself was in Burgundy, nor does it provide any date or location linking him to the region within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1678). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Hugues Capet was physically present in Burgundy during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv-NIL_robert", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Robert" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q1173_bourgogne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1173", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourgogne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “la Bourgogne l’ avoit été par le roy Henry … en faveur de Robert son frère.” This indicates that the Burgundian territories were transferred to Robert as a vassal, implying he held them and therefore was physically present in the region at some point before 1678. The text does not explicitly state “Robert visited” but possession of the territory requires his presence. Hence there is evidence that Robert was in Bourgogne prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the history of the Burgundian region and mentions “Robert” only as a brother of Henry, without any indication that he was physically present in Bourgogne at any time near 1678. The text contains no date or explicit statement linking Robert’s presence to the location within the required 30‑day window before the document’s publication (i.e., between 15 July and 16 August 1678). Because there is no evidence of his presence in that timeframe, we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv-NIL_henry", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henry Ii", "roy Henry" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q1173_bourgogne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1173", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourgogne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “la Bourgogne l’ a été par le roy Henry, petit fils de Hugues Capet.” This indicates that Henry II was present in Burgundy at some point prior to the document’s publication date (1678). The text also references a treaty involving Henry, further confirming his involvement with the region. Since these statements are part of the same historical narrative and precede 1678, they provide clear evidence of Henry’s presence in Burgundy before that date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the historical possession of Burgundy by various French kings, including “le roy Henry, petit fils de Hugues Capet.” However, it provides only a genealogical reference and does not contain any explicit statement that Henry was physically present in Burgundy during the period leading up to the document’s publication date (1678). No dates or contemporaneous events are mentioned; the text is purely historical background. Therefore there is no evidence that Henry Ii was present in Burgundy within the required 30‑day window before 1678.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe Le Hardy" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q1173_bourgogne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1173", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourgogne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “elle y revint sous le roy Jean, qui la donna peu de temps après à Philippe Le Hardy son quatriéme fils.” This indicates that the region was returned to King John and then granted to his fourth son. It does not state that Philippe himself visited or resided in Bourgogne; it only refers to his son receiving the territory. No other part of the text mentions Philippe’s presence in the region, nor any event linking him directly to Bourgogne before 1678. Therefore there is no textual evidence supporting his physical presence at that location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Philippe Le Hardy son quatriéme fils” as a recipient of the Burgundian lands, but it does not state that he himself was physically present in Bourgogne or any other location at all. There is no explicit mention of his presence, nor any date or time reference linking him to the region within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1678). Therefore there is no textual evidence satisfying the requirement for a direct claim of presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv-NIL_jean", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roy Jean" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q1173_bourgogne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1173", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourgogne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “elle y revint sous le roy Jean, qui la donna peu de temps après à Philippe Le Hardy son quatriéme fils.” This indicates that King John was physically present in Bourgogne at the time of this event. Since the document is a historical account written before 1678, it confirms that the king’s presence in Bourgogne occurred prior to the publication date. Therefore there is direct textual evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “le roy Jean” in the context of his authority over the Burgundy region (“la Bourgogne l’ a été sous le roy Jean”). It does not provide any explicit statement that he was physically present in Burgundy, nor does it give a date or time reference tied to such an event. The only temporal marker in the text is “peu de temps après” (a short period after), which refers to his handing over the region to Philippe Le Hardy and has no connection to the publication year 1678. Since there is no direct evidence that King Jean was present in Burgundy within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q151120_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q151120", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles dernier Duc de Bourgogne" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q1173_bourgogne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1173", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourgogne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly names “Charles dernier Duc de Bourgogne” and notes that after his death Louis XI took over the territory. The title “Duc de Bourgogne” indicates that Charles was the ruler of that region, which requires physical presence in Burgundy to exercise authority. Since the text does not contradict this claim and it occurs before the document’s publication date (1678), we have evidence that he was physically present in Burgundy at some point prior to 1678.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage refers to “Charles dernier Duc de Bourgogne” as part of a historical narrative, but it does not provide any date or statement indicating that he was physically present in the region of Bourgogne during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1678). No explicit mention of his presence, nor any temporal reference linking him to the location within that timeframe. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at the specified location and date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q8058_loüis", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q8058", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Loüis XI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q1173_bourgogne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1173", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourgogne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Loüis XI s’ en rendit le maître” (Louis XI became master of Burgundy). This indicates that Louis XI held the title and thus physically occupied or controlled the region at some point before his death in 1483, which is well before the document’s publication date of 1678. The text does not require any later presence; it merely records an earlier historical fact. Therefore there is explicit evidence that Louis XI was present in Bourgogne prior to 1678.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Loüis XI s’ en rendit le maître” (i.e., he became master) concerning the region of Bourgogne, but it does not provide any explicit evidence that he was physically present in Bourgogne during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1678). No dates or location references tied to Loüis XI appear within that timeframe. Therefore there is no direct textual support for his presence in Bourgogne within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv-NIL_henry", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henry Ii", "roy Henry" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “le traité de château Cambrésy” – a treaty that would have been signed at Château Cambrésy in France. Signing a treaty requires the signatory’s physical presence, so this indicates Henry II was in France at some point before 1678. Additionally, it notes that “la Bourgogne l’ avoit été par le roy Henry,” implying he granted Burgundy to his brother Robert while residing in France. These references provide explicit evidence of Henry II’s presence in the location (France) prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the actions of Henry II’s descendants and references the Treaty of Château‑Cambresy, but it does not state that Henry II himself was physically present in France during any period close to the document’s publication date (1678). No explicit mention of Henry II being in France within the 30‑day window before 1678 is found. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at the specified location and time.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q129857_françois", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q129857", "pers_mentions_list": [ "François I" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q1173_bourgogne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1173", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourgogne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “quand François I la voulut ceder,” indicating that François I had control of the territory and was physically present there when he decided to relinquish it. This implies his presence in Bourgogne before the document’s publication date (1678). No contradictory evidence is provided, so we can conclude that the text supports his physical presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the history of Burgundy and mentions that “François I la voulut ceder” (i.e., he wanted to give up Burgundy). This statement refers only to his political intent, not to any physical presence in the region. Moreover, the text contains no date or temporal marker that places François I’s activity within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1678 (i.e., between 15 July and 16 August 1678). Because there is no explicit evidence that he was physically present in Bourgogne during that period, the criteria for a TRUE classification are not met. Hence we classify the claim as FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q159575_hugues_capet", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q159575", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Hugues Capet" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly names “le roy Henry, petit fils de Hugues Capet,” indicating that Hugues Capet was a king of France and therefore physically present in the country at some point before 1678. The text discusses French royal succession, territories, and events within France, confirming that the location is indeed France. Since the document’s publication date is 1678, the presence of Hugues Capet in France precedes this date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the Burgundian territories and references “Henry, petit fils de Hugues Capet,” indicating that Hugues Capet is only mentioned as an ancestor. It contains no statement or contextual clue that he was physically present in France during the 30‑day window ending on 1678 (i.e., between roughly September 25 and October 25, 1677). The text is a historical narrative about later kings; it does not provide any evidence of Hugues Capet’s presence at that time. Therefore the required evidence for his presence in France within the specified period is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe Le Hardy" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies “Philippe Le Hardy, son quatriéme fils” as a recipient of the Burgundian territories from King Jean and notes that later Louis XI regained them. This indicates that Philippe was a member of the French royal family and therefore physically present in France at some point before the document’s publication date (1678). The text provides no contradictory evidence, so we can conclude that his presence is supported by the narrative.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage names Philippe Le Hardy as “le roi” and notes that he received Burgundy from his father Jean, but it provides no explicit statement about his physical presence in France or any dates near the publication year 1678. The text merely identifies him as a royal figure; there is no mention of him being in France during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s date (≈ 1677‑09‑09 to 1678‑09‑09). Because the required evidence is absent, we cannot confirm his presence at that location within the specified timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv-NIL_robert", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Robert" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the transfer of Burgundy to Henry II “en faveur de Robert son frère.” This phrasing indicates that Robert is Henry’s brother and that the gift was made in his favor, but it does not state that Robert himself was physically present in France at any time. The text merely references a relationship and a transaction; there is no explicit mention of Robert being in France or residing there. Consequently, we cannot assert with certainty that he was physically present before the document’s publication date (1678). However, because the context implies that Robert was a French noble who would have been part of the French political landscape, it is reasonable to infer that his presence in France is plausible. Thus the evidence supports a probable but not certain presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the transfer of Burgundy among French monarchs, naming “Robert son frère” only as a relative of Henry II. It does not state that Robert himself was physically present in France, nor does it provide any date or event linking him to the location within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1678). Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at the specified time and place, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv-NIL_jean", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roy Jean" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “et qu’ elle y revint sous le roy Jean,” indicating that King Jean (roy Jean) was present in France at the time of this event. Since the text refers to him as a French monarch, it implies his physical presence within the country before the document’s publication date (1678). Therefore there is direct evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text refers to “le roy Jean” only in the context of Burgundian territories (“il y revint sous le roy Jean”), indicating that he was the reigning monarch during a period when those lands were under his rule. It does not provide any explicit statement or date that places him physically in France within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (i.e., between roughly August 25 and September 25, 1678). No mention of an event, a visit, or a location tied to him during that timeframe appears. Therefore there is no direct evidence that “roy Jean” was present in France within the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q151120_charles", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q151120", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Charles dernier Duc de Bourgogne" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “après la mort de Charles dernier Duc de Bourgogne, Louis XI s’en rendit le maître.” This indicates that Charles was a Duke of Burgundy who had been in the French realm before his death; otherwise Louis XI could not have taken over. The Duchy of Burgundy is a region within France, so his presence there is implicit. Therefore the text provides evidence that Charles dernier Duc de Bourgogne was physically present in France prior to 1678.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the history of the Duchy of Burgundy, noting that “Charles dernier Duc de Bourgogne” had died before Louis XI took control. It provides no explicit statement or contextual evidence that Charles himself was physically present in France during the period immediately preceding the document’s publication date (1678). The text only references his earlier reign and the subsequent transfer of the duchy, without mentioning any contemporary presence in France. Therefore there is no direct textual support for Charles being in France within the 30‑day window before 1678.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q8058_loüis", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q8058", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Loüis XI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Loüis XI s’ en rendit le maître” after the death of Charles, implying he was physically in France at that time. Since his reign ended long before 1678, this confirms his presence in France prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses the history of Burgundy and names Louis XI (Loüis XI) as a ruler who became “maître” after Charles’s death, but it does not state that he was physically present in France during any specific time. There is no mention of his presence in France within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1678). The text only provides historical context about his rule; it lacks explicit evidence of his physical presence at the location. Therefore, we cannot confirm that Louis XI was present in France during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q129857_françois", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q129857", "pers_mentions_list": [ "François I" ], "loc_entity_id": "1678_Esprit_Faussete_chunk235.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The excerpt discusses the history of French monarchs and their territorial actions up to the 16th‑century period. It mentions Henry II, the Treaty of Chambresy, and later kings such as Louis XI, but it contains no reference to François I being in France or any location within the country before 1678. The text is a general historical commentary; there is no explicit statement that François I was physically present in France at any time prior to the document’s publication date (1678). Therefore, based on the provided passage, we cannot assert his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text discusses historical events and references to various kings, including François I, but it does not contain any explicit statement or contextual cue indicating that François I was physically present in France within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1678). The only mention of him is a reference to his reign and actions, which is purely historical and unrelated to contemporary presence. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that he was in France during that period.", "CORRECT": false } ] }, { "document_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Voltaire HistoireGenerale chunk159", "time_period": "1756", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1756", "language": "fr", "text": " Ce qu' il y a de plus singulier, c' est qu' Urbain II qui prononça cette sentence, la prononça dans les propres états du roi, à Clermont en Auvergne, où il venait chercher un azile, et dans ce même concile où nous verrons qu' il prêcha la croisade. Cependant il ne paraît point que Philippe excommunié ait été en horreur à ses sujets ; c' est une raison de plus pour douter de cet abandon général où l'on dit que le roi Robert avait été réduit. Ce qu' il y eut d' assez remarquable, c' est le mariage du roi Henri pére de Philippe avec une princesse moscovite. Les moscovites ou russes commençaient à être chrêtiens ; mais ils n' avaient aucun commerce avec le reste de l' Europe. Ils habitaient au - delà de la Pologne, à peine chrêtienne elle -même, et sans aucune correspondance avec la France. Cependant le roi Henri envoya jusqu' en Russie demander la fille du souverain, à qui les autres européans donnaient le titre de duc, aussi - bien qu' au chef de la Pologne. Les russes le nommaient dans leur langage tzaar, dont on a fait depuis le mot de czar. On prétend que Henri se détermina à ce mariage, dans la crainte d' essuyer des querelles ecclesiastiques. De toutes les superstitions de ces tems -là, ce n' était pas la moins nuisible au bien des états, que celle de ne pouvoir épouser sa parente au septiéme degré. Presque tous les souverains de l' Europe étaient parens de Henri. Quoi qu' il en soit, Anne fille de Jaraslau czar de Moscovie fut reine de France ; et il est à remarquer qu' après la mort de son mari, elle n' eut point la régence, et n' y prétendit point. Les loix changent selon les tems. Ce fut le comte de Flandres, un des vassaux du royaume, qui en fut régent. La reine veuve se remaria à un comte de Crepi. Tout cela serait singulier aujourdhui, et ne le fut point alors. Ni Henri, ni Philippe I ne firent rien de mémorable ; mais de leur tems leurs vassaux et arrière - vassaux conquirent des royaumes. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri", "roi Henri" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly refers to “le roi Henri” (the French king) and describes his marriage to a Moscow princess, an event that would require him to be in France as the sovereign of that kingdom. The text does not indicate any absence or relocation from France; rather it treats him as residing there. Therefore there is direct evidence that Henri was physically present in France before the document’s publication date (1756).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri’s marriage and political context but does not contain any explicit statement indicating that Henri himself was physically present in France within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The only mention of Henri is as a king involved in events, without a location or temporal marker tied to his presence. Because the task requires direct evidence of Henri being in France during that specific period, and none is provided, we must conclude that the claim cannot be verified.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri", "roi Henri" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage identifies Henri as “le roi Henri” and notes that “Presque tous les souverains de l' Europe étaient parens de Henri,” indicating that he was a European monarch residing in Europe. It also mentions his marriage to a Moscow princess, which would have required him to be physically present in Europe at the time of the ceremony. Since these statements are part of the text and refer to events occurring well before 1756, they provide clear evidence that Henri was indeed in Europe prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "Prediction(\n reasoning=None,\n classification=None\n)", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe I", "Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q1152_auvergne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1152", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Auvergne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Urbain II’s presence at Clermont in Auvergne (“la prononça dans les propres états du roi, à Clermont en Auvergne”), but it contains no mention of Philippe I being there or any other reference to him in that location. The text only notes that “Philippe excommunié” was not in a state of horror; it does not indicate his physical presence at Auvergne before 1756. Therefore, the document provides no evidence that Philippe I was physically present in Auvergne prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Urbain II’s activities in Clermont, Auvergne, but it contains no explicit statement that Philippe I was physically present at Auvergne during the period leading up to the document’s publication date (1756). The only mention of Philippe is “Philippe excommunié,” which refers to his status rather than any location or time. Since there is no textual evidence linking Philippe to Auvergne within the required 30‑day window, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri", "roi Henri" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q159_russie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q159", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Russie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “le roi Henri envoya jusqu’en Russie demander la fille du souverain,” indicating an act of correspondence rather than a physical visit. There is no mention of Henri traveling to, residing in, or otherwise being present in Russia before the document’s publication date (1756). The only reference to Russia concerns a diplomatic request, not a presence. Consequently, there is no evidence that Henri was physically in Russia prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “Le roi Henri envoya jusqu’en Russie demander la fille du souverain…”, indicating an act of sending a letter or request to Russia. It does not state that Henri himself was physically present in Russia during the relevant period. Moreover, no date is provided within the text that falls within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Henri was in Russia at that time.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q30578_urbain", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q30578", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Urbain II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q1152_auvergne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1152", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Auvergne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Urbain II … prononça cette sentence, la prononça dans les propres états du roi, à Clermont en Auvergne, où il venait chercher un azile.” This explicitly indicates that Urbain II was physically present in Clermont, which lies within the region of Auvergne, before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is direct evidence of his presence at the specified location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that Urbain II pronounced a sentence “dans les propres états du roi, à Clermont en Auvergne,” indicating his physical presence at Clermont in Auvergne. However, the text provides no explicit date or temporal reference for this event. The publication date is given as 1756, so the required window would be from 17 January 1756 to 16 February 1756. Because the document does not specify that Urbain’s presence at Clermont occurred within those dates, we cannot confirm his presence in the specified timeframe. Therefore the evidence is insufficient for a positive classification.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_jaraslau", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Jaraslau czar de Moscovie" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Jaraslau czar of Moscow primarily as a political figure whose daughter became queen of France, and it notes that “les moscovites ou russes … n’avaient aucun commerce avec le reste de l’Europe.” This indicates that the czar himself was in Russia, not physically present in Europe. The text contains no mention of Jaraslau traveling to or residing in any European location before 1756. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence in Europe prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage refers to Jaraslau czar de Moscovie only as the father of Anne; it does not state that he himself was in Europe nor provide a date within 30 days before 1756. No explicit mention of his presence at any location, let alone Europe. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q30578_urbain", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q30578", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Urbain II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q2975160_clermont", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2975160", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Clermont" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Urbain II … prononça cette sentence, la prononça dans les propres états du roi, à Clermont en Auvergne, où il venait chercher un azile.” This indicates that Urbain II was physically present in Clermont at the time of the event described. Since the text is a historical account and not dated to 1756, the presence occurred before the document’s publication date (1756). Therefore there is direct evidence supporting his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage states that “Urbain II … prononça cette sentence, la prononça dans les propres états du roi, à Clermont en Auvergne.” This indicates Urbain II was physically present in Clermont when he spoke the sentence, but it provides no explicit date or time reference. The document’s publication date is 1756, and the required window for presence is the 30‑day period ending on that date (i.e., between 1755‑12‑16 and 1756‑01‑16). Since the text does not give a specific date within this window, we cannot confirm that Urbain II was in Clermont during those days. Therefore there is no evidence to satisfy the condition.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe I", "Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q2975160_clermont", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2975160", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Clermont" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Urbain II’s presence in Clermont, but it contains no reference to Philippe I (or “Philippe”) being physically present there. The text merely notes that Philippe was excommunicated and does not mention any location or event involving him at Clermont before the document’s publication date of 1756. Consequently, there is no evidence supporting his presence in Clermont prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Urbain II … à Clermont en Auvergne” but does not state that Philippe I (or simply “Philippe”) was present at that location. There is no sentence or clause linking Philippe to Clermont, nor any date that places him there within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication in 1756. Consequently, the text provides no evidence of Philippe’s presence at Clermont during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_anne", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Anne" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Anne fille de Jaraslau czar de Moscovie fut reine de France.” This indicates that Anne held the title of queen of France, which places her physically within the French kingdom—a part of Europe. Since the document’s publication date is 1756 and the text refers to a historical event (her reign) that occurred well before that year, it provides clear evidence that Anne was indeed present in Europe at some point prior to 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage identifies Anne as “fille de Jaraslau czar de Moscovie, reine de France,” indicating her status and residence in France (which lies in Europe). However, it does not provide any explicit date or event linking her presence to the period within 30 days before the document’s publication date of 1756. The text merely states her role as queen; it lacks a temporal marker that places her physically in Europe during that specific window. Because the required evidence is absent, we cannot confirm Anne’s presence in Europe within the stipulated timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe I", "Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage refers to “Philippe excommunié” only as a person, without indicating any physical presence in Europe. It discusses his actions and relationships but does not state that he was located in Europe at any time before 1756. Since there is no explicit mention of him being physically present in the continent, we cannot confirm his presence based on this text.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses historical figures and events but contains no explicit statement that Philippe I was physically present in Europe within the 30‑day period preceding the publication date (1756). It merely refers to him as “Philippe I” or “Philippe excommunié,” without any location, date, or event indicating his presence. Because the text provides no evidence of his presence at a specific place during that window, we cannot confirm it. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_robert", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roi Robert" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q46_europe", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q46", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Europe" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the sentence “c’ est une raison de plus pour douter de cet abandon général où l’on dit que le roi Robert avait été réduit.” The phrase “avait été réduit” indicates that King Robert was placed under a vassal or in a subordinate position within Europe, implying his physical presence there. This statement directly confirms that he was present in Europe before the document’s publication date of 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text discusses medieval events concerning kings Henri, Philippe I, and mentions “roi Robert” only as a reference to his reduction or decline; it does not state that he was physically present in Europe at any time close to the publication date of 1756. There are no explicit temporal markers (e.g., dates, months) within 30 days before 1756 indicating his presence in Europe. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the requirement for a direct statement that “roi Robert” was present at “Europe” within the specified window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri", "roi Henri" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q36_pologne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q36", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pologne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that the Russian (moscovite) population lived “au‑delà de la Pologne” and that King Henri sent a letter to Russia, but it provides no indication that Henri himself ever traveled or was physically present in Poland. The text only describes his correspondence with Moscow, not any visit to the Polish lands. Consequently there is no evidence of Henri’s presence in Poland before 1756.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri’s correspondence with Moscow and mentions that Russians lived “au‑delà de la Pologne,” i.e., beyond the Polish border, not within it. It also notes that Henri sent a request to Russia for a princess’s daughter; there is no statement indicating that Henri himself was physically present in Poland during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1756). The text only references his actions toward Russia and does not provide any evidence of his presence in Poland. Therefore, we cannot confirm Henri’s presence at the specified location within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe I", "Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q36_pologne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q36", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Pologne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the relationship between French royalty, particularly Henri IV, and Russian/Moscow subjects, but it does not contain any reference to Philippe I being in or visiting Poland. The only mention of Poland appears in a sentence about “les russes … à peine chrêtienne elle‑même” describing their location beyond the Polish border; there is no indication that Philippe himself was present there. Since the text provides no evidence of his presence at the specified location before 1756, we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the presence of Moscovite (Russian) subjects beyond Poland and mentions King Henry’s correspondence with Russia, but it contains no explicit statement that Philippe I was in Poland or any date near 1756. The only reference to Philippe is a generic mention (“Philippe I”) without location or temporal context, and the text does not provide evidence of his presence in Poland within the required 30‑day window before the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no textual support for the claim that Philippe I was physically present in Poland during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_robert", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "roi Robert" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q1152_auvergne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1152", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Auvergne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Urbain II speaking in the king’s own states at Clermont in Auvergne, but it does not state that “roi Robert” was present there or anywhere else. The only reference to a location is tied to Urbian II’s speech; no mention of Robert being in Auvergne appears elsewhere in the text. Since the document contains no evidence of Robert’s presence in Auvergne before its publication date (1756), we conclude that such an occurrence is not supported by the text.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses medieval events and mentions “Urbain II” as the one who spoke in Clermont, a town in Auvergne. It does not state that “roi Robert” was present at Auvergne or any other location within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). The only reference to Auvergne is tied to Urbain II’s presence, and there is no explicit mention of Robert being in Auvergne during that period. Therefore, based on the text alone, we cannot confirm that roi Robert was physically present at Auvergne within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe I", "Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q159_russie", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q159", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Russie" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri’s diplomatic activity toward Russia and mentions that “Henri … envoya jusqu’en Russie” to request a princess, but it contains no reference to Philippe I or any mention of him being in Russia. The only mention of Philippe is the phrase “Philippe excommunié,” which refers to his ecclesiastical status, not to a physical presence in Russia. Since there is no textual evidence that Philippe was physically present in Russia before 1756, we conclude that he was not there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Urbain II’s activities in Clermont and mentions Henri’s correspondence with Russia, but it contains no explicit statement that Philippe I (or “Philippe”) was physically present in Russia. The only reference to Philippe is the phrase “Philippe excommunié,” which refers to his ecclesiastical status, not a location or date of presence. There are no dates or events linking Philippe to Russia within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no evidence that Philippe was in Russia during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv-NIL_philippe", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Philippe I", "Philippe" ], "loc_entity_id": "1756_Voltaire_HistoireGenerale_chunk159.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Henri’s marriage and the political situation in Europe; it does not state that Philippe I was physically present in France or provide any evidence of his presence there before 1756. The only mention of Philippe is “Philippe excommunié,” which refers to his religious status, not to a location. Therefore there is no textual support for the claim that he was in France prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Urbain II’s actions in Clermont, mentions the excommunication of Philippe but does not state that Philippe himself was physically present in France during the relevant timeframe. No sentence or clause explicitly links Philippe I to being in France within 30 days before the publication date (1756). Therefore there is no direct evidence supporting his presence at the specified location and time.", "CORRECT": false } ] }, { "document_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "DesPeriers nouvellesRecreations chunk73", "time_period": "1561", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1561", "language": "fr", "text": " Misser Iuliano commanda à Torneto de la prendre, & de la mener chez luy en l' estable. Là ou elle se rengea aussi proprement, comme si elle n' en eust jamais bougé. Il la fit ramener le lendemain en la mesme place, pour veoir si quelqu' un la vendiqueroit. Mais il ne venoit personne, dont il fut fort esbahy : & pensoit que ce fust quelque esprit qui l' eust ramenee. De là à quelque temps maistre Arnaud s' addresse à misser Iuliano, lequel il trouva monté sus sa hacquenee, & luy dit : monsieur, je suis fort aise de savoir que ceste hacquenee soit à vous. Car asseurez vous qu' elle est bonne : je l' ay essayee, il y ha environ un an que je la trouvay pres du pont du Rosne, qu' elle s' en alloit toute seule, & qu' un garson la vouloit prendre. Mais congnoissant à sa façon qu' elle n' estoit pas sienne, je la luy ostay : & la garday un jour ou deux sans pouvoir savoir à qui elle estoit. Le troisiesme jour je la menay jusques à Villeneufve, ou j' ouy dire qu' un gentilhomme François la cherchoit, & qu' il luy avoit esté dit qu' on l' avoit veue emmener par un garson sus le chemin de Paris. Le gentilhomme alloit apres. Et moy sachant celà, je picque apres luy pour la luy rendre : mais je ne le peu jamais atteindre. Car il alloit grand train pour atteindre son larron. Et allay tant en le cherchant, que je me trouvay jusqu' en Lorraine. Là ou voyant que je n' oyois point de nouvelles de ce gentilhomme, je la garday long temps. Et à la fin m' en suis revenu en ceste ville, ou je l' avoys prise : & ay trouvé par quelques uns de mes amis, qu' il se souvenoit bien l' avoir veue autrefois en ceste ville : mais qu' il ne savoit à qui, sinon que ce fust à quelqu' un de vous autres messieurs de la legation. Sachant celà, je l' ay fait mener en la place du Palais, affin que celuy à qui elle estoit la peust appercevoir. Et ce pendant je m' en estois allé d' icy à Nimes, d' ou je suis retourné depuis deux jours. Mais Dieu soit loué qu' elle ha retrouvé son maistre. Car j' en estois en grand peine. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_francois", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "chemin de Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that a gentleman named François was “vu emmener par un garson sup le chemin de Paris.” This indicates that François was physically on the route to Paris at some point before the document’s publication date of 1561. The mention is explicit and dated within the narrative, confirming his presence along that path prior to 1561.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "TRUE", "CORRECT_isAt": false, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains the sentence “qu’ il luy avoit esté dit qu’ on l’ avoit veue emmener par un garson sup le chemin de Paris.” This indicates that a gentleman named François was seen being taken along the “chemin de Paris,” implying his physical presence at that location. The narrative is written in present‑time style and refers to events occurring shortly before the narrator’s return, which aligns with the publication date of 1561. Since no explicit date is given but the description suggests a recent occurrence within the same timeframe as the report, it falls within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_villeneufve", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Villeneufve" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "chemin de Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “on the third day I carried her up to Villeneufve, … and that a gentleman François had been told she had been taken by a man above the chemin de Paris.” This refers only to the actions of the narrator and the gentleman; it does not state that Villeneufve himself was on or visited the chemin de Paris. The text contains no direct evidence that Villeneufve was present at that location before 1561.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Villeneufve” as a destination (“je la menay jusques à Villeneufve”) but does not state that the person named “Villeneufve” was physically present at the “chemin de Paris.” The only reference to the “chemin de Paris” concerns a gentilhomme and his companion, not Villeneufve. Therefore there is no explicit evidence in the text that Villeneufve was at the specified location within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1561).", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_francois", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_rosne", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "pont du Rosne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that a gentleman named François was “seen carrying” Misser Iuliano along the route from Paris to Villeneufve. It mentions the narrator’s own discovery of the lady near the bridge *pont du Rosne*, but it does not state that François himself was at that location or that he ever visited it. No sentence in the text links François with the bridge, nor provides any indication that he was physically present there before 1561. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at pont du Rosne prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document mentions the location “pont du Rosne” only in a sentence describing a woman’s solitary presence there, with no reference to François. Later passages refer to other individuals (e.g., “gentilhomme”, “messieurs de la legation”) but do not link François to that place or provide any date that would place him at the site within 30 days before the publication year of 1561. Since there is no explicit evidence in the text that François was physically present at pont du Rosne during the required time window, we must conclude that the claim cannot be verified.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_misser_iuliano", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "misser Iuliano" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_rosne", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "pont du Rosne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions Misser Iuliano only in relation to commands and actions concerning a stable, not to any location such as “pont du Rosne.” The only reference to the bridge is made by another person (“je la trouvay pres du pont du Rosne”), indicating that the speaker was near the bridge at that time. There is no statement or implication that Misser Iuliano himself visited or was present at the bridge before 1561. Therefore, there is no evidence in the text supporting his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains references to Misser Iuliano, but it does not explicitly state that he was present at “pont du Rosne” or provide a date for such an event. The only mention of the river is in a separate clause about a location near the bridge (“qu’ elle s’ en alloit toute seule”), which does not identify Misser Iuliano nor tie him to the bridge. No temporal marker (e.g., “the day before” or a specific month) places his presence at that site within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1561. Therefore, there is no direct evidence in the text satisfying the required criteria.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_villeneufve", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Villeneufve" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_rosne", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "pont du Rosne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that the narrator “found her” near the Pont du Rosne, but it does not identify this person as Villeneufve. The only mention of Villeneufve in the text is a separate location (“je la menay jusques à Villeneufve”) and a reference to a gentleman named François seeking her there. There is no explicit statement that Villeneufve himself was at Pont du Rosne before 1561. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, we cannot confirm that Villeneufve was physically present at that bridge prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that “le troisiesme jour je la menay jusques à Villeneufve, où j’ ouy dire qu’ un gentilhomme François la cherchoit…”. This sentence only identifies Villeneufve as a place the narrator visited; it does not state that Villeneufve was at the “pont du Rosne” or that any person named Villeneufve was present there. The location “pont du Rosne” is mentioned earlier in a different context, describing Misser Iuliano’s presence near that spot (“qu’ elle s’ en alloit toute seule…”). There is no explicit statement linking Villeneufve to the pont du Rosne within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1561). Therefore there is no textual evidence satisfying the required condition.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_arnaud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "maistre Arnaud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_rosne", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "pont du Rosne" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that the narrator “essayée” (tried) and found an object near the Pont du Rosne about a year ago. It does not state that maître Arnaud himself was at that location; it merely records the narrator’s observation. No other part of the text mentions Maître Arnaud visiting or being present at the bridge, nor any date indicating his presence there before 1561. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Maître Arnaud was physically present at Pont du Rosne prior to its publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains two references to “maistre Arnaud” and one reference to “pont du Rosne”. The only sentence mentioning the bridge is: \n\n> “Mais asseurez vous qu’ elle est bonne : je l’ ay essayee, il y ha environ un an que je la trouvay pres du pont du Rosne…”.\n\nThis indicates that the narrator found a person (referred to as “elle”) near the bridge about a year ago. There is no mention of maître Arnaud being at or near the bridge in this sentence or elsewhere in the text. The only other appearance of maître Arnaud is when he addresses Misser Iuliano, with no location attached. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that maître Araud was physically present at pont du Rosne within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1561).", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_villeneufve", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Villeneufve" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv_Q1137_lorraine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1137", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Lorraine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports the narrator’s own journey: “Je me trouvay jusqu’en Lorraine.” This indicates that the narrator reached Lorraine while searching for a gentleman, but it provides no mention of Villeneufve being present there. The only reference to Villeneufve is in an earlier clause (“je la menay jusques à Villeneufve”), which describes a separate location and does not link Villeneufve to Lorraine. Therefore the text contains no evidence that Villeneufve was physically at Lorraine before the document’s publication date of 1561.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Villeneufve” as a place the narrator traveled to, but it does not state that Villeneufve itself was present in Lorraine. The only reference to Lorraine is that the narrator reached there after traveling from Villeneufve; no indication of Villeneufve’s presence at that location is given. Since the text lacks explicit evidence that Villeneufve was physically present in Lorraine within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1561), we cannot confirm the required presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_francois", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv_Q1137_lorraine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1137", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Lorraine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “le troisiesme jour je la menay jusques à Villeneufve, ou j’ ouy dire qu’ un gentilhomme François la cherchoit.” This indicates that François was present at Villeneufve. Later it says the narrator “me trouvay jusqu’ en Lorraine,” implying that the gentleman (François) had been there while searching. Thus the text provides explicit evidence that François was physically in Lorraine before the document’s publication date of 1561.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains several references to “Lorraine” and to a person named François, but they do not indicate that François himself was physically present there during the relevant time window. \n\n- The passage notes that the narrator traveled to Lorraine (“…je me trouvay jusqu’ en Lorraine”), but it does not mention François being in that location at all. \n- Earlier, the text refers to “un gentilhomme François la cherchoit” (a gentleman named François searching for someone), which is a separate event and does not specify his presence in Lorraine. \n\nSince there is no explicit statement that François was present in Lorraine within approximately 30 days before the document’s publication date of 1561, we cannot confirm his physical presence at that location during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_torneto", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Torneto" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_rosne", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "pont du Rosne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that “Misser Iuliano commanda à Torneto de la prendre, & de la mener chez luy en l’ estable.” This indicates a command to bring Torneto somewhere else, but it does not specify the location as pont du Rosne. Later in the text the narrator says: “je l’ ay essayée, il y ha environ un an que je la trouvay pres du pont du Rosne,” referring to finding something at that spot, not about Torneto’s presence there. No sentence or clause links Torneto with the pont du Rosne location before 1561. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Torneto was physically present at pont du Rosne prior to its publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Misser Iuliano commanded “Torneto” to take the stable and bring it to him, but it does not state that Torneto himself was at the Pont du Rosne. The only mention of the Pont du Rosne is in a separate sentence: “je l’ ay essayee, il y ha environ un an que je la trouvay pres du pont du Rosne,” which refers to the stable being found near the bridge, not to Torneto’s presence there. No explicit statement or contextual cue indicates that Torneto was physically present at Pont du Rosne within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1561). Therefore, the required evidence is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_misser_iuliano", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "misser Iuliano" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "chemin de Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains the phrase “sur le chemin de Paris” but it refers to a different person: “un gentilhomme … qu’il l’ avoit esté dit qu’on l’ avoit veue emmener par un garson sup le chemin de Paris.” There is no mention of Misser Iuliano being on that road, nor any indication that he was physically present there. The only reference to Misser Iuliano concerns his command and actions in Torneto, not the route to Paris. Consequently, the text provides no evidence that Misser Iuliano was at “chemin de Paris” before the document’s publication date of 1561.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the name “misser Iuliano” but no explicit statement that he was at the “chemin de Paris.” The only reference to the “chemin de Paris” is in a sentence about a different person (gentilhomme François) and does not involve misser Iuliano. There are no date or time references near that location, nor any indication that misser Iuliano was present there within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1561. Therefore the required evidence is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_arnaud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "maistre Arnaud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "chemin de Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that a gentleman named François was seen “sur le chemin de Paris” while carrying the woman, but it does not state or imply that Maître Arnaud himself was at that location. The only mention of Maître Arnaud is his conversation with Misser Iuliano and his presence in Villeneufve; there is no reference to him traveling along or being present on the “chemin de Paris.” Therefore there is no textual evidence that Maître Arnaud was physically present at the specified location before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains a reference to “maistre Arnaud” only in the sentence “mais il ne venoit personne, dont il fut fort esbahy : & pensoit que ce fust quelque esprit qui l’ eust ramenee. De là à quelque temps maistre Arnaud s' addresse à misser Iuliano…”. This indicates that Maître Arnaud was addressing Misser Iuliano, but it does not specify any location or a date near the publication date (1561). The only mention of “chemin de Paris” appears in a separate clause about a different person and is unrelated to Maître Arnaud. No explicit statement places Maître Arnaud at that location within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication. Therefore, there is no evidence supporting his presence at “chemin de Paris” during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_arnaud", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "maistre Arnaud" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv_Q1137_lorraine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1137", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Lorraine" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that the narrator “allay tant en le cherchant, que je me trouvay jusqu’en Lorraine.” This indicates that the narrator traveled to Lorraine while searching for Maître Arnaud, but it does not state that Maître Arnaud himself was present there. No sentence in the text mentions Maître Arnaud being at or visiting Lorraine; only the narrator’s presence is noted. Therefore there is no direct evidence that Maître Arnaud was physically in Lorraine before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “maistre Arnaud” earlier in the passage, but it does not state that he was physically present at “Lorraine.” The only mention of “Lorraine” is the narrator’s own travel (“je me trouvay jusqu’ en Lorraine”), which has no connection to Maître Arnaud. Since there is no explicit statement that Maître Arnaud was in Lorraine within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1561), the required evidence for presence is missing.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_misser_iuliano", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "misser Iuliano" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv_Q1137_lorraine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1137", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Lorraine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports that the narrator reached “Lorraine” while traveling, but it never states that Misser Iuliano himself was present there. The only reference to Misser Iuliano concerns his command of someone to bring an item to his stable; no mention of him being in Lorraine is found. Since the text provides no evidence of Misser Iuliano’s physical presence at that location before 1561, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains a reference to “Lorraine” only in the context of the narrator’s travel (“…je me trouvay jusqu’en Lorraine”), but it does not mention Misser Iuliano being there at all. The only mention of Misser Iuliano is that he commands someone and later is spoken to by Arnaud, but no location tied to him coincides with Lorraine within the relevant timeframe (the 30‑day window ending on 1561). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Misser Iuliano was present in Lorraine during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_francois", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv_Q42807_nimes", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q42807", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Nimes" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage contains several references to “Nimes” and to the person named François, but they are unrelated in the text. The only mention of Nimes occurs when the narrator says he was traveling from Icy to Nimes (“Et ce pendant je m’ en estois allé d’ icy à Nimes”), indicating his presence there, not François’s. François is mentioned earlier as a gentilhomme who sought out Misser Iuliano and later as someone of the legation, but no sentence links him to Nimes or any activity in that city before 1561. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that François was physically present at Nimes prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “le gentilhomme François” only in the context of his search near Villeneufve, with no reference to Nimes or any date that would place him there within 30 days before the document’s publication (1561). The later mention of being at Nimes refers to the narrator (“je m’ en estois allé d’ icy à Nimes”), not François. Since there is no explicit statement that François was physically present in Nimes during the required time window, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_villeneufve", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Villeneufve" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv_Q42807_nimes", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q42807", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Nimes" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document records that the author traveled to Villeneufve on the third day, but it does not state that Villeneufve itself is in or near Nimes. Later, the author mentions being “d’ icy à Nimes” while traveling there, indicating his presence at Nimes, yet no mention of Villeneufve’s presence there follows. The text only notes that Villeneufve was visited earlier and that a gentleman named François sought her there; it does not connect Villeneufve with the location of Nimes. Therefore there is no explicit evidence in the document that Villeneufve was physically present at Nimes before the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the name “Villeneufve” as a place, not as an individual’s identity, and it does not state that this person was physically present in Nimes. The only mention of Nimes is in the phrase “d’ icy à Nimes,” which refers to the author’s location, not Villeneufve. No date or temporal marker links Villeneufve to Nimes within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1561). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Villeneufve was present at Nimes during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_torneto", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Torneto" ], "loc_entity_id": "1561_DesPeriers_nouvellesRecreations_chunk73.tsv-NIL_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "chemin de Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage reports Misser Iuliano’s orders to “Torneto” regarding a possession, but it does not mention any travel or presence of Torneto along the “chemin de Paris.” The only reference to that route concerns a different individual (a gentleman named François) who was said to have been taken along the way. No sentence in the text links Torneto with the chemin de Paris before 1561, nor does it provide any date or location evidence indicating his presence there. Therefore there is no textual support for Torneto being at that location prior to the document’s publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “chemin de Paris” only in a sentence describing a different individual: “qu’ il luy avoit esté dit qu’ on l’ avoit veue emmener par un garson sup le chemin de Paris.” This refers to the presence of another person (the gentleman) along that path, not Torneto. Earlier in the text Torneto is only mentioned as a subject of an order (“Misser Iuliano commanda à Torneto de la prendre”), with no reference to him being at any location, let alone “chemin de Paris.” There is no explicit statement or contextual cue indicating that Torneto was physically present on that path within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1561). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence there.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Rabelais Pantagruel chunk86", "time_period": "1542", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1542", "language": "fr", "text": " Je ay employe pour congnoistre si rien y a icy escript, une partie de ce que en met Messere Francesco di Nianto le Thuscan qui a escript la maniere de lire lettres non apparentes, & ce que escript zoroaster peri grammato acriton. Et Calphurnius Bassus de literis illegibilibus, mais je n' y voy rien, & croy qu' il n' y a aultre chose que l' aneau. Or le voyons. Lors le regardant trouverent escript par dedans en Hebrieu, Lamah hazabthani, dont appellerent Epistemon, luy demandant que c' estoit a dire ? a quoy respondit que c' estoyent motz Hebraicques signifians, pourquoy me as tu laissé, dont soubdain replicqua Panurge, j' Entens le cas, voyez vous ce dyament ? c' est un dyamant faulx. Telle est doncques l' exposition de ce que veult dire la dame. Dyamant faulx pourquoy me as tu laissee ? Laquelle exposition entendit Pantagruel incontinent : & luy souvint comment a son departir n' avoit dict a dieu a la dame, & s' en contristoit : & voluntiers fust retourné a paris pour faire sa paix avecques elle. Mais Epistemon luy reduyt a memoire le departement de Eneas d' avecques Dido, & le dict de Heraclides Tarentin : que la navire restant a l' ancre, quand la necessite presse, il fault coupper la chorde plus tost que perdre temps a la deslier. Et qu' il debvoit laisser tous pensemens pour survenir a la ville de sa nativite, qui estoit en dangier, De faict une heure apres se leva le vent nomme Nordnord west, auquel ilz donnerent pleines voilles & prindrent la haulte mer, & en briefz jours passans par porto sancto, & par Medere, firent scalle es isles de Canarre. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv_Q82732_eneas", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q82732", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Eneas" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_canarre", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "isles de Canarre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a ship’s voyage: it mentions leaving “Porto Sancto,” passing through “Medere,” and then sailing to the “isles of Canarre.” The only mention of Eneas in the text is the phrase “Eneas d’ avecques Dido,” which appears earlier in the narrative and does not connect him to the islands. There is no statement that Eneas himself was on board or at those islands during the voyage. Consequently, there is no textual evidence indicating that Eneas was physically present at the “isles of Canarre” before the document’s publication date (1542).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses Eneas’s departure from Carthage and later travel, but it does not state that he was physically present on the “isles of Canarre” within a 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1542). The only mention of the location is in the context of a general voyage (“firent scalle es isles de Canarre”), without linking it to Eneas or providing any temporal evidence that he was there during that period. Therefore, there is no explicit textual support for his presence at the specified location within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_heraclides_tarentin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Heraclides Tarentin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_porto_sancto", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "porto sancto" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that the travelers “firent scalle es isles de Canarre” after passing through “par porto sancto, & par Medere.” This indicates that the group physically visited Porto Sancto during their voyage. Since Heraclides Tarentin is identified as part of this group in the preceding context (“Et qu’ il debvoit laisser tous pensemens…”), it follows that he was present at Porto Sancto before the document’s publication date (1542). The text provides explicit evidence of his presence there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “porto sancto” as a place passed by ships, but it does not state that Heraclides Tarentin was physically present there. There is no sentence or clause linking the person to that location within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1542). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at “porto sancto” during that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_epistemon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Epistemon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv_Q26253_medere", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q26253", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Medere" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “Medere” as a port visited by the ship, but it does not state that Epistemon was physically present there. The only reference to Epistemon in the text is that he was addressed (“dont appellerent Epistemon”), with no indication of his location at Medere or any other place. Since the document provides no explicit evidence of Epistemon’s presence at Medere before its publication date, we cannot conclude that he was there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Epistemon” in the context of being addressed (“dont appellerent Epistemon”), indicating that he is a person referenced but not shown as physically present at any location. Later, the text describes a voyage that passes through Medere: “…par Medere, firent scalle es isles de Canarre.” This sentence refers to the ship or group traveling through Medere; it does not state that Epistemon was among those who were there. No explicit mention of Epistemon’s presence at Medere within a timeframe (e.g., “Epistemon was in Medere on X”) appears, nor is any date provided that would place him near the publication date of 1542. Therefore, the text does not provide evidence that Epistemon was physically present at Medere within the required 30‑day window before the document’s publication.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_heraclides_tarentin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Heraclides Tarentin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv_Q26253_medere", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q26253", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Medere" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that, after a certain event, “en briefz jours passans par porto sancto, & par Medere, firent scalle es isles de Canarre.” The pronoun “il” refers to Heraclides Tarentin, indicating that he was traveling and passed through the port of Medere during this voyage. Since the document’s publication date is 1542, any passage through Medere would have occurred before that date. Therefore there is explicit textual evidence that Heraclides Tarentin was physically present in Medere prior to 1542.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions Heraclides Tarentin in the context of his departure and later activities, but it only states that the group “firent scalle es isles de Canarre” **through** Medere. There is no explicit statement that Heraclides himself was present at Medere, nor any date or time reference within the 30‑day window preceding the publication year (1542). Consequently, the text does not provide evidence of his presence at Medere in that period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv_Q82732_eneas", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q82732", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Eneas" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_porto_sancto", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "porto sancto" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a voyage that “passes through Porto Sancto” and makes sail of islands, but it does not state that the individual named **Eneas** himself was present at that location. The only reference to Eneas is in an earlier clause about memory of his departure from Carthage with Dido; there is no mention of him arriving or being in Porto Sancto. Therefore there is no textual evidence that Eneas was physically present at the port before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “par porto sancto” as part of a sailing route, but it does not state that the person named Eneas was present there. There is no explicit mention of Eneas at Porto Sancto within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1542). Therefore the required evidence for presence is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_paris", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "paris" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_porto_sancto", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "porto sancto" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a journey that includes “par porteto sancto, & par Medere,” but it does not explicitly state that the person named **paris** was present in that location. The only reference to Paris is the statement that the traveler “volontiers fust retourné à paris” after leaving elsewhere, indicating a return to Paris rather than a presence at Porto Sancto. Since there is no direct evidence linking the individual to Porto Sancto before the document’s publication date (1542), we cannot confirm their physical presence there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains two separate references to places: “paris” appears in the sentence “voluntiers fust retourné à paris,” indicating a return to Paris, and “porto sancto” appears later in the phrase “en briefz jours passans par porto sancto.” There is no explicit statement that the person named “paris” was physically present at Porto Sancto during the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1542). The text merely lists two locations without linking them to a single individual or event. Consequently, there is no evidence in the text of the required presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv_Q82732_eneas", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q82732", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Eneas" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv_Q26253_medere", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q26253", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Medere" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “par Medere, firent scalle es isles de Canarre,” indicating that the ship’s crew (including Eneas) sailed through Medere on a voyage to the islands of Canarre. Since this description occurs in the text and the document was published in 1542, it confirms that Eneas was physically present at Medere before the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Eneas d’ avecques Dido” and later that he “fust retourné à paris pour faire sa paix avecques elle.” This indicates Eneas was in Paris, not at Medere. The only reference to Medere is within a broader travel description: “en briefz jours passans par porto sancto, & par Medere, firent scalle es isles de Canarre.” This sentence does not state that Eneas himself was present there; it merely notes the route passed through Medere. There is no explicit statement linking Eneas to Medere within a timeframe close to 1542 (the publication date). Therefore, the text provides no evidence that Eneas was physically at Medere in the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_epistemon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Epistemon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_porto_sancto", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "porto sancto" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a voyage that “passes through porto sancto” and mentions other places such as Medere, but it does not state that Epistemon himself was at that location. The only reference to Epistemon in the text is earlier (“Epistemon luy reduyt…”) concerning memory of a departure, with no indication of his presence at Porto Sancto. Since there is no explicit evidence that he visited or was physically present at Porto Sancto before 1542, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “porto sancto” as a place visited by the travelers, but it does not state that Epistemon was there. The only reference to Epistemon is in the phrase “dont appellerent Epistemon,” which indicates he was called or identified, not that he physically attended the location. Moreover, no date within the text falls within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1542 (i.e., between 1541‑09‑16 and 1542‑09‑16). Since there is no explicit evidence that Epistemon was present at porto sancto during that period, we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_dido", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Dido" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_canarre", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "isles de Canarre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the voyage of a ship and its stops at various ports, including “isles de Canarre.” It references Dido only in the context of a diplomatic encounter (“fust retourné à paris pour faire sa paix avecques elle”), indicating that she was present in Paris or elsewhere, not on the islands. No sentence or clause links Dido to the isles of Canarre, nor does it provide any date or event placing her there before 1542. Therefore there is no evidence in the text that Dido physically visited those isles prior to the document’s publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses a literary context and describes a voyage that passes through Porto sancto, Medere, and the isles of Canarre. It mentions “Eneas d’ avecques Dido” but does not state that Dido herself was present at those islands or provide any date linking her presence to the voyage. The only temporal reference in the text is the publication year (1542), which falls outside the required 30‑day window before that date, and there is no explicit mention of Dido’s presence on the isles within that period. Consequently, the text does not provide evidence that Dido was physically present at “isles de Canarre” in the 30 days preceding the publication.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_heraclides_tarentin", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Heraclides Tarentin" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_canarre", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "isles de Canarre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a ship’s voyage that passes “par Medere, firent scalle es isles de Canarre,” indicating the ship sailed through those islands. However, it does not state that Heraclides Tarentin himself was on board or physically present at the islands. The only reference to Heraclides Tarentin in the text concerns his hometown and a decision to leave it; there is no mention of him visiting or being in the canary islands before 1542. Therefore, there is no evidence that he was physically present at the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "TRUE", "CORRECT_isAt": false, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes a group of travelers who “firent scalle es isles de Canarre” (they sailed to the islands of Canarre) and notes that this happened “en briefz jours passans” (in a few days). Earlier in the text it states that Heraclides Tarentin had left his native city, indicating he was part of that group. The phrase “en briefz jours passans” implies the event occurred within a short timeframe before the document’s publication date (1542), which falls well within the 30‑day window preceding 1542. Thus the text provides explicit evidence that Heraclides Tarentin was present at the islands of Canarre during this period.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_dido", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Dido" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_porto_sancto", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "porto sancto" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a voyage and mentions “par porto sancto” as part of the route taken by ships, but it does not state that Dido herself was present at that location. The only reference to Dido is in the phrase “Eneas d’ avecques Dido,” which refers to a relationship between two characters, not to her physical presence at any port. Since there is no explicit evidence that Dido visited or was at porto sancto before 1542, we conclude that the claim cannot be supported by the text.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes a voyage that passes through “Porto sancto” and other ports, but it does not state that the person named Dido was present at that location. The only reference to Dido is in an earlier clause (“Eneas d’ avecques Dido”), which refers to a departure from Eneas with Dido, not to her being in Porto sancto. Since there is no explicit mention of Dido’s presence at the specified port within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date (1542), we cannot confirm that she was physically present there.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_paris", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "paris" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv_Q26253_medere", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q26253", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Medere" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a journey that “firent scalle es isles de Canarre” and notes that they passed through “parto sancto, & par Medere.” However, the only mention of the person named **paris** in this text is that he “retourné à paris pour faire sa paix avecques elle,” indicating his return to Paris. There is no statement or implication that he himself was physically present at Medere; the reference to Medere pertains to the group’s route, not to the individual’s presence there. Consequently, the document provides no evidence that **paris** was in Medere before its publication date of 1542.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the word “paris” only in the sentence “voluntiers fust retourné à paris,” indicating a return to Paris, with no reference to Medere or any presence of the person at that location. The mention of “Medere” appears elsewhere (“… par sancto, & par Medere”), but it is not linked to the person’s activity or presence. There is no explicit statement in the text that the person was physically present in Medere within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1542). Therefore, the required evidence of presence is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_dido", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Dido" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv_Q26253_medere", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q26253", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Medere" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a voyage and mentions “par Medere” as one of the ports visited by the ship, but it does not state that Dido herself was present there. The only reference to Dido is in a sentence about her native city being in danger; no location other than that city is associated with her presence. Since the text provides no indication that Dido physically traveled or stopped at Medere before 1542, we cannot infer such evidence from the document.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Dido” only in the phrase “Eneas d' avecques Dido,” which indicates a relationship or reference to her, but it does not state that she was physically present at any location. The location “Medere” appears later in the text (“par Medere, firent scalle es isles de Canarre”), describing a voyage route, yet there is no explicit statement that Dido herself was at Medere during the relevant timeframe. Moreover, the document contains no date or temporal marker linking Dido’s presence to Medere within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1542). Because the text provides no direct evidence of her physical presence at Medere in that period, we cannot confirm it.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_paris", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "paris" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_canarre", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "isles de Canarre" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a traveler who “voluntiers fust retourné à paris” after having been in various ports, including the islands of Canarre. However, it does not explicitly state that the individual named “paris” himself was present at those islands; it merely notes that the group sailed there. Since the text provides no direct evidence linking the person to the location before 1542, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the phrase “voluntiers fust retourné à paris” indicating that someone returned to Paris, but it does not state that this person was at the “isles de Canarre.” Later in the text it mentions a group sailing to and from the isles of Canarre, yet there is no explicit link between the person named “paris” and that location. No date or time reference places any mention of Paris near the isles within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1542). Therefore, the text provides no evidence that the person was physically present at the specified location during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_pantagruel", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Pantagruel" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_porto_sancto", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "porto sancto" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "Prediction(\n reasoning=None,\n classification=None\n)", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage contains the name “Pantagruel” only in a sentence describing his return to Paris (“et s’ en contristoit : & voluntiers fust retourné a paris pour faire sa paix avecques elle”). No mention of him being at “porto sancto” appears, nor is there any date or time reference linking Pantagruel’s presence to that location. The text discusses events in the broader context (e.g., winds, ports) but does not state that Pantagruel was physically present at porto sancto within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1542. Therefore there is no explicit evidence supporting his presence at that place during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_epistemon", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Epistemon" ], "loc_entity_id": "1542_Rabelais_Pantagruel_chunk86.tsv-NIL_canarre", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "isles de Canarre" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a voyage to the “isles de Canarre” and notes that the group sailed past the port of Medere before reaching those islands. However, it does not explicitly state that Epistemon himself was present at or on those islands; it merely mentions his name in relation to a letter received from Lamah Hazabthani. The text only indicates that someone (or a group) performed the sailing, but there is no direct evidence linking Epistemon’s physical presence to the location before the document’s publication date of 1542. Therefore, based on the available information, we cannot confirm that Epistemon was at the islands of Canarre prior to 1542.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage describes a voyage in which the narrator sails from port to “port sancto, & par Medere, firent scalle es isles de Canarre.” The text does not mention Epistemon being at that location; it only notes that Epistemon’s memory was reduced. No date or time reference ties this event to a period within 30 days before the document’s publication (1542). Therefore there is no explicit evidence of Epistemon’s presence at “isles de Canarre” in the required window.", "CORRECT": false } ] }, { "document_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Peiresc lettres chunk52", "time_period": "1637", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1637", "language": "fr", "text": "Excepté le seul dernier volume qui est de quadrupedibus bisulcis, dont la guerre du roy de Suede a interrompu la continuation, et que le prix de tout ce qui est imprimé en Alemagne est de 14 escus, mais que les libraires de Paris n' en ont point d' exemplaires presentement. Sur quoy en attendant vos ordres je finiray, demeurant, monsieur, vostre, etc. à Boisgency, ce 13 Aoust 1631. à M. PIERRE D' ANTELMI 1631 Monsieur, c' est trop demeurer en silence et j' ay esté bien aise d' avoir occasion de le rompre pour vous dire, aprez les protestations de la continuation de mes voeux pour vostre service, qu' enfin il est passé un petit balot de quelques livres nouveaux, entre lesquels il y en a d' assez curieux et que je crois bien que vous ne serez pas marry de voir. J' ay envoyé mon libraire à Aix pour me les venir relier et pour avoir moyen de vous en faire participant. Entre autres nous avons eu quelques opuscules du pauvre feu Keplerus qui sont maintenant ès mains de Mr le prieur De La Valette à Aix, concernant les petits ecclypses de soleil qui doivent arriver à ces mois de novembre et decembre, non par l' interposition du corps de la lune, mais à celle des planettes de Venus et de Mercure qui seront aussi belles à observer qu' elles sont rares, n' arrivants qu' une fois en plusieurs centaines d' années, par où l'on pourra tirer d' excellentes consequences de la proportion de leur grandeur et de leur distance ou esloignement de la terre. Il y a aussi un jugement dudict Keplerus sur un livre d' un p. Jesuite de la Chine concernant l' astronomie de ce païs la, qu' on dit estre beaucoup plus exacte que la nostre, où il y a de belles choses à voir. Si vous pouviez faire une debauche jusques icy aprez ces chaleurs, nous tascherons de vous y donner quelque agreable divertissement. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_keplerus", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Keplerus" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a correspondence written on 13 August 1631 from Boisgeneric, mentioning the price of books in Aengland and the status of copies in Paris. It notes that the writer has sent his clerk to Aix to obtain new volumes, but it does not state that Keplerus himself was physically present at Aix. The only reference to Keplerus is a “jugement” (judgment) he wrote on a Chinese book; this indicates an intellectual activity rather than physical presence. No sentence in the text explicitly says Keplerus was in Aix or that he visited there before 1637. Therefore, there is no direct evidence of his presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “ce 13 Aoust 1631,” which falls well outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (October–November 1637). The only reference to Keplerus in the text is that his works are now in the hands of a local priest at Aix, implying he was not physically present there. No sentence indicates Keplerus himself was in Aix during the relevant period. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Keplerus was present at Aix within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_mr_le_prieur_de_la_valette", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr le prieur De La Valette" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions that the writer sent his bookseller to Aix, but it does not state that Mr le prieur De La Valette himself was physically present in Aix. There is no explicit reference to him being there or any indication of his presence before 1637. Therefore we cannot confirm his presence at the location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "Prediction(\n reasoning=None,\n classification=None\n)", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q1150_mercure", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q1150", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mercure" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the state of books and mentions “Mr le prieur De La Valette à Aix” as a holder of Kepler’s works. It does not name or refer to any individual named “Mercure” being in Aix, nor does it describe Mercure traveling there. The only reference to Mercury is as a celestial body (“les planettes de Venus et de Mercure”), which has no connection to the location or a person. Therefore there is no textual evidence that the person “Mercure” was physically present at Aix before 1637.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The letter is dated “ce 13 Aoust 1631,” which lies well outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1637 (i.e., between 15 Oct 1636 and 30 Oct 1637). The only reference to “Mercure” in the text is a mention of the planet within an astronomical passage, not as a person present at Aix. The location “Aix” appears only with the name of another individual (“Mr le prieur De La Valette à Aix”), indicating that this person was there, but it does not indicate Mercure’s presence. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence in the document that Mercure was physically present at Aix within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_pierre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M. PIERRE D' ANTELMI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_boisgency", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Boisgency" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter dated 13 August 1631 mentions “à Boisgency” in the context of the writer’s address, but it does not state that M. Pierre D’Antelemi was physically present there. The text only indicates that the writer is writing to Monsieur at Boisgency; there is no explicit mention of D’Antelemi being in Boisgery or any other location before 1637. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at Boisgery prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains a reference to “M. PIERRE D’ ANTELMI” only as a salutation (“Monsieur, c’est trop demeurer en silence…”) and does not associate him with any location or date. The only mention of Boisgency is in the sentence “demeurant, monsieur, vostre, etc. à Boisgency, ce 13 Aoust 1631,” which records the writer’s presence at Boisgery on 13 August 1631—well outside the required window (the publication date is 1637, so the relevant period is roughly 15 August 1637 to 16 September 1637). Since there is no explicit statement that M. PIERRE D’ ANTELMI was at Boisgery during that month, the criteria for presence are not met.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_keplerus", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Keplerus" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q148_chine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q148", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “jugement duke Keplerus sur un livre d’un p. Jesuite de la Chine concernant l’astronomie de ce pays.” This indicates that Keplerus authored a judgment on a book written by a Jesuit from China, but it does not state that Keplerus himself was physically present in China or visited the country. The text only references the content of the book and its subject matter, not Keplerus’s travel or residence there. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that Keplerus was at “Chine” before the publication date (1637).", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage mentions “Keplerus” in relation to his writings and judgments, but it does not state that he was physically present in the country of China or at any location named “Chine.” The only reference to “Chine” is a description of a book authored by a Jesuit from China; there is no indication that Keplerus himself visited or was located there. Since the task requires explicit evidence of presence within roughly 30 days before the publication date (1637), and none is provided, we conclude that the claim cannot be verified.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_pierre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M. PIERRE D' ANTELMI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage describes a letter written from Boisgeneric on 13 August 1631, addressing “M. PIERRE D' ANTELMI”. It contains no reference to the writer being in Paris or traveling there; it only mentions Boisgeneric and the date of the writing. Since the text provides no evidence that M. D’ Antelemi was physically present in Paris before 1637, we cannot confirm his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the name “M. PIERRE D' ANTELMI” only as a salutation (“Monsieur, c’est trop demeurer en silence…”) and does not associate him with any location or date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication (1637). The only dates mentioned are “13 Aoust 1631,” which falls far outside the required timeframe. There is no explicit statement that M. PIERRE D' ANTELMI was in Paris during August–September 1637, nor any mention of his presence at Boisgency or elsewhere in that period. Consequently, there is no textual evidence supporting his physical presence in Paris within the specified window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q47652_venus", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q47652", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Venus" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document discusses the state of books, mentions “Aix” as a place where a printer and a priest are located, and references Kepler’s works. It contains no mention of any person named “Venus” being physically present in Aix or any other location before 1637. The only reference to Venus is its astronomical significance, not a personal presence. Therefore there is no evidence that the person “Venus” was at the location “Aix” prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses the arrival of certain planetary bodies (Venus and Mercury) in November‑December 1637 and mentions a priest named “M. le prieur De La Valette à Aix.” However, there is no explicit statement that Venus itself was physically present at Aix during the month preceding the publication date (i.e., between early January and early February 1637). The only reference to “Venus” in the text concerns its astronomical appearance, not a physical presence. Therefore, based on the criteria for strict evidence of presence within the required time window, we cannot confirm that Venus was at Aix.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_pierre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M. PIERRE D' ANTELMI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q183_alemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Alemagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document discusses prices in “Alemagne” and mentions a bookseller’s activities in Aix, but it does not state that M. Pierre D’Antelemi was physically present there. The only reference to him is the salutation of the letter; no mention of his presence at Alemagne or any other location tied to him. Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence at Alemagne before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains the name “M. PIERRE D’ ANTELMI” and a date of 13 Aoust 1631, which is well outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (early March 1637). The location “Alemagne” appears only in the phrase “prix de tout ce qui est imprimé en Alemagne,” with no indication that M. PIERRE D’ ANTELMI was present there. No other sentence links him to Alemagne within the required timeframe. Therefore, there is no explicit evidence of his presence at Alemagne in the 30‑day window before 1637.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q47652_venus", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q47652", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Venus" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q148_chine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q148", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a judgment by Keplerus concerning a book written by a Jesuit from China about Chinese astronomy. It mentions the planet “Venus” only in the context of astronomical observations, not as a physical presence at any location. There is no statement that Venus itself was present in China or that the person named “Venus” visited there. Therefore, the text provides no evidence that Venus was physically located in China before 1637.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated 13 August 1631 and discusses astronomical observations involving Venus, but it does not state that the person “Venus” was physically present in China or any other location during the period leading up to the publication date (1637). The only mention of “Chine” refers to a book about Chinese astronomy, not to a presence. There is no explicit temporal reference linking Venus’s presence with the location within the 30‑day window before 1637. Therefore the required evidence for presence is absent.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q1150_mercure", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q1150", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mercure" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q148_chine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q148", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses Kepler’s judgment on a Jesuit book about Chinese astronomy and mentions “the astronomie de ce pays” (astronomy of this country). It does not state that the person named **Mercure** was physically present in China. The name “Mercure” refers to the planet Mercury, not an individual who could have visited China. Therefore there is no evidence in the text indicating that Mercure was at the location of China before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses a book by a Jesuit from China, mentions Kepler’s work on the Chinese text, and references the planet “Mercure” only in the context of astronomy. It does not state that any individual named Mercure was physically present in China during the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (1637). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that the person “Mercure” was at the location “Chine” within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_pierre", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M. PIERRE D' ANTELMI" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q47465_aix", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q47465", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Aix" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that the writer is writing to “Monsieur, c’est trop demeurer en silence… à Boisgency, ce 13 Aoust 1631. à M. PIERRE D’ ANTELMI 1631 Monsieur,” indicating that Pierre D’Antelemi was in Boisgery on that date. Later the writer says he has sent his bookseller to Aix “pour me les venir relier et pour avoir moyen de vous en faire participant.” This refers only to the act of sending a book to Aix and does not mention D’Antelemi’s presence there; it merely indicates the writer is arranging delivery. No sentence in the text reports that Pierre D’Antelemi himself was physically present in Aix before 1637. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, we cannot confirm his presence at Aix.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “M. PIERRE D’ ANTELMI” only in the context of Boisgeneric, dated 13 Aoust 1631 – well outside the required window (the publication date is 1637, so the relevant period is roughly 15 Aug 1637 to 16 Sep 1637). \nLater in the passage the author mentions sending a bookseller to Aix and that “M. le prieur De La Valette” was at Aix, but there is no mention of M. PIERRE D’ ANTELMI being present in Aix during any time within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date. \nSince the task requires explicit evidence that the person was physically present at the specified location within the required timeframe, and such evidence is absent, we must classify the claim as false.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_keplerus", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Keplerus" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_boisgency", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Boisgency" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that the writer is “à Boisgency, ce 13 Aoust 1631,” indicating his presence there on that date. However, Keplerus is only mentioned in a separate clause about books and manuscripts: “quelques opuscules du pauvre feu Keplerus qui sont maintenant ès mains de Mr le prieur De La Valette à Aix.” This indicates Keplerus’s works are at Aix, not Boisgency, and provides no indication of his physical presence there. No other part of the text links Keplerus to Boisgency or any event that would place him in that location before 1637. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that Keplerus was physically present at Boisgency prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “Boisgency” dated **13 Aoust 1631**, which is well outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (15 Aug – 16 Sep 1637). The only mention of “Keplerus” in the passage refers to a work (“pouvre feu Keplerus”) and does not associate him with Boisgency or any event at that location within the required timeframe. There is no explicit statement indicating that Keplerus was physically present at Boisgency during the relevant period. Consequently, there is no evidence supporting his presence at Boisgency within the specified window.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_mr_le_prieur_de_la_valette", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr le prieur De La Valette" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q148_chine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q148", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that a judgment by Keplerus concerns a book from a Jesuit of China, but it only states that “M. le prieur De La Valette à Aix” is the recipient or holder of such material. There is no mention of him traveling to or being present in China; he is identified as residing in Aix (France). Therefore there is no evidence that Mr le prieur De La Valette was physically present at “Chine” before the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains a reference to “Mr le prieur De La Valette” being at Aix, but it does not state that he was physically present in Chine. The only mention of Chine is within the context of a book about Chinese astronomy, with no indication that Mr le prieur himself visited or was located there. Moreover, any date references in the text (e.g., “13 Aoust 1631”) fall well outside the required 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1637. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at Chine within that timeframe, the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_mr_le_prieur_de_la_valette", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr le prieur De La Valette" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_boisgency", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Boisgency" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter dated 13 August 1631 states that the author “demeurant, monsieur, vostre, etc. à Boisgency,” indicating the author’s presence at Boisgery on that date. However, the only reference to Mr le prieur De La Valette in the text is that his books are now in his hands “à Aix.” The letter does not mention him being in Boisgery or traveling there; it merely notes his location elsewhere. Since no explicit statement places Mr le prieur De La Valette at Boisgery before 1637, there is no evidence of his physical presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to Boisency dated “13 Aoust 1631”, which is well outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (early 1637). The only mention of Mr. le prieur De La Valette in the passage concerns his presence at Aix, not Boisency, and there is no other statement indicating he was physically present at Boisency within the required timeframe. Consequently, there is no evidence that Mr. le prieur De La Valette was at Boisency during the month before 1637.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_mr_le_prieur_de_la_valette", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Mr le prieur De La Valette" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter is dated 13 August 1631 and discusses books that have been sent to Mr le prieur De La Valette from Aix, not from Paris. There is no mention of him being physically present in Paris or any activity there before the document’s publication date (1637). Therefore there is no evidence supporting his presence in Paris prior to 1637.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The letter is dated “ce 13 Aoust 1631” and explicitly states that “Mr le prieur De La Valette … à Aix.” It contains no reference to him being in Paris, nor any date or event linking his presence there within the month before the document’s publication (early January 1637). Because the only mention of Mr. le prieur is tied to a location and a year far earlier than the required window, we have no evidence that he was physically present in Paris during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv-NIL_keplerus", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Keplerus" ], "loc_entity_id": "1637_Peiresc_lettres_chunk52.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the author’s correspondence and the distribution of books, noting that a printer in Paris has no copies on hand. It references “Monsieur” and “Mr le prieur De La Valette à Aix,” but there is no mention of Keplerus being physically present in Paris or any other location related to Paris. The only reference to Keplerus is his works (“opuscules du pauvre feu Keplerus”) that are held by the priest at Aix, indicating he was likely elsewhere (perhaps in a different city). Since the text does not state that Keplerus himself visited Paris before 1637, there is no evidence of his presence at the specified location. Therefore we classify this as FALSE.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Keplerus’s manuscripts and their distribution to a priest at Aix, but it does not state that Keplerus himself was present in Paris during the relevant timeframe. The only mention of Paris is “les libraires de Paris n’en ont point d’exemplaires,” which refers to books held by Parisian booksellers, not to Keplerus’s presence there. No date or event linking Keplerus to Paris appears within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1637). Therefore, there is no explicit evidence that Keplerus was in Paris during that period.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Bussy Lettres chunk38", "time_period": "1666", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1666", "language": "fr", "text": " Réponse du Comte De Bussy à Madame De S. à Chaseu, ce 1 septembre 1675. En me disant que vos lettres ne sont pas dignes de mon approbation, madame, vous m' en écrivez une qui en merite une plus grande, sans compter votre modestie. Mais pour ne la pas offenser davantage, je vais traiter d' autre chose avec vous. Ce qu' a dit monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons, me paroît d' un fort honnête homme, et d' un homme qui sent bien son merite. Monsieur De Montecuculi se précautionnera encore davantage avec lui qu' il ne faisoit avec Monsieur De Turenne. Il est vrai que le Chevalier De G a été heureux au combat d' Altenhein ; et la trousse à celui de Consarbricq. Je m' en réjouis avec vous, et j' espere vous faire un même compliment pour monsieur vôtre fils à la fin de cette campagne. Vous devriez me conter le procès dont il est question. Je suis tellement affamé de vous entendre, que je vous donnerois une favorable audience quand vous ne me parleriez que d' interlocutoires et d' arrêts. Lettre 61. Réponse du Comte De Bussy à Madame De S. à Chaseu, ce 29 octobre 1675. Je reçus hier vôtre lettre, madame, qui me donna la joie que vos lettres ont accoutumé de me donner. Enfin voilà vôtre niéce sur le point de passer le pas ; elle va trouver ce qu' elle cherchoit. à propos de chercher, ceci me fait souvenir du pauvre Chevalier De Rohan, qui ayant rencontré un soir bien tard à Fontainebleau, Madame D' seule qui passoit dans une galerie, lui demanda ce qu' elle cherchoit : rien, dit -elle. Ma foi, madame, lui répondit -il, je ne voudrois pas avoir perdu ce que vous cherchez. Voilà mon petit conte, madame. Vous m' avez permis d' en faire un aussi, je me sers de la liberté que vous m' avez donnée. J' ai trouvé le vôtre plaisant au dernier point, et je m' en sçai bon gré, car il faut avoir de l' esprit pour trouver cela aussi plaisant qu' il est. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_s_", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "S." ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv_Q2968914_chaseu", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2968914", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chaseu" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter is dated 29 October 1675 and is addressed to “Madame De S.” at the place of residence “Chaseu”. The text merely records that the writer received a letter from her; it does not state that she was physically present in Chaseu, nor does it provide any earlier reference (before 1666) indicating her presence there. No other part of the document mentions S. being in or visiting Chaseu prior to the publication date. Therefore there is no evidence supporting the claim that S. was at Chaseu before 1666.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains two dated letters (1 September 1675 and 29 October 1675) addressed to “Madame De S.” at the location of Chaseu, but it does not state that Madame De S. herself was physically present in Chaseu during those dates. The only mention of a person named “S.” is as part of the salutation (“Madame De S.”), which indicates an address rather than physical presence. Moreover, the publication date provided (1666) falls far outside the 30‑day window preceding the letter’s date (29 October 1675). Since there is no explicit evidence that “S.” was in Chaseu within the required timeframe, we conclude that the claim cannot be verified.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_turenne", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Monsieur De Turenne" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chalons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Châlons" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “ce qu’ a dit monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons,” indicating that De Turenne was in Châlons at some point. However, the letter itself is dated 29 October 1675 and contains no explicit date or reference to an earlier occurrence of his presence there before 1666. The text merely reports a remark made by De Turenne while he was passing through the town; it does not provide any evidence that this event occurred prior to 1666. Consequently, there is no direct evidence in the document that Monsieur De Turenne was physically present at Châlons before the publication date of 1666.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "TRUE", "CORRECT_isAt": false, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The letter is dated 1 September 1675, so the relevant window for presence is from 29 August 1675 to 30 September 1675. \nWithin that text we find the phrase “Ce qu’ a dit monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne **en passant à Châlons**…”, which explicitly states that Monsieur De Turenne was in Châlons at the time of the letter’s composition. This event falls within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date, satisfying the criteria for presence.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_montecuculi", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Monsieur De Montecuculi" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chalons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Châlons" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons,” indicating the Prince’s passage through that city. However, there is no mention of Monsieur De Montecuculi himself being in Châlons or any other location tied to him. The only sentence mentioning De Montecuculi concerns his concern for the Prince and does not specify a place. Since the document’s publication date (1666) precedes any events described, there is no evidence that Monsieur De Montecuculi was physically present in Châlons before 1666.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is a letter dated 29 October 1675, and it contains the sentence “Ce qu’ a dit monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons…”. This refers to the Prince of Monsieur De Turenne’s passage through Châlons, not to Monsieur De Montecuculi. No other part of the text mentions Monsieur De Montecuculi being in Châlons or provides any date that would place him there within the 30‑day window (29 September – 29 October 1675). Because the required evidence is absent, we cannot confirm his presence at the specified location during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_seule", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Madame D' seule" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv_Q182872_fontainebleau", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q182872", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Fontainebleau" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text contains a reference to Madame D’ seule meeting Chevalier De Rohan at Fontainebleau, but it does not provide any date for that encounter; the only dated portion of the letter is “ce 29 octobre 1675,” which places the event well after the document’s publication year (1666). Since there is no evidence in the text indicating that Madame D’ seule was physically present at Fontainebleau before 1666, we cannot confirm her presence at that location prior to the publication date. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The letter is dated “ce 29 octobre 1675,” so the window for presence would be from 29 septembre 1675 to 29 octobre 1675. The passage that mentions Madame D’ seule at Fontainebleau reads: “le pauvre Chevalier De Rohan, qui ayant rencontré un soir bien tard à Fontainebleau, Madame D’ seule qui passoit dans une galerie…” This sentence provides no explicit date for the event; it merely reports an encounter without linking it to a specific day. Consequently there is no evidence that she was physically present at Fontainebleau within the required 30‑day period before the document’s publication. Therefore we cannot confirm her presence in that window.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_madame_de", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Madame De" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv_Q2968914_chaseu", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2968914", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chaseu" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text contains the phrase “Réponse du Comte De Bussy à Madame De S. à Chaseu,” which indicates that the reply was sent to her while she was in Chaseu. However, this reference occurs in a letter dated 29 October 1675, well after the document’s publication date of 1666. The text provides no earlier mention or evidence that Madame De had been physically present at Chaseu before 1666. Therefore there is no supporting evidence for her presence at that location prior to the publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains the phrase “Réponse du Comte De Bussy à Madame De S. à Chaseu, ce 29 octobre 1675.” This indicates that the letter was addressed to Madame De at a place called Chaseu on 29 October 1675. However, it does not state that she herself was physically present in Chaseu; it merely records the address of the correspondence. Moreover, the date of this event (29 Oct 1675) is far outside the required window: the document’s publication date is given as 1666, so the relevant period would be roughly from early January to early March 1666. No sentence in the text mentions Madame De being in Chaseu during that timeframe. Therefore there is no explicit evidence of her presence at Chaseu within the required 30‑day window before the publication date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_monsieur_le_prince", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "monsieur le prince" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chalons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Châlons" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons” – i.e., the Prince was passing through Châlons at some point, but it does not provide a specific date or year. The letter itself is dated 1675, so any reference to his presence in Châlons could be from before or after 1666. Because there is no explicit evidence that he was physically present in Châlons prior to the publication date of 1666, we cannot confirm his presence at that location before that year.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The letter dated 29 October 1675 mentions “monsieur le prince … en passant à Châlons,” indicating that the person was in Châlons at some point. However, the text provides no explicit date for this event; it merely states that he passed through the city without specifying when. The required evidence is a presence within roughly 30 days before the document’s publication (i.e., between 29 September 1675 and 29 October 1675). Since no date falls in this window, we cannot confirm that the person was physically present at Châlons during the specified period. Therefore the claim is not supported by the text.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chevalier_de_g", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Chevalier De Rohan", "Chevalier De G" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv_Q182872_fontainebleau", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q182872", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Fontainebleau" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter dated 29 October 1675 reports that “le pauvre Chevalier De Rohan, qui ayant rencontré un soir bien tard à Fontainebleau…”. This indicates a meeting at Fontainebleau, but the date of the encounter is implied to be in 1675 (the same year as the letter). The document’s publication date given for classification is 1666, which is earlier than any mention of De Rohan’s presence. Therefore there is no evidence that Chevalier De Rohan was physically present at Fontainebleau before 1666.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text states that “le pauvre Chevalier De Rohan, qui ayant rencontré un soir bien tard à Fontainebleau…” but does not provide a specific date for this meeting. The document itself is dated 29 October 1675, so the required window of presence would be between 30 September 1675 and 29 October 1675. Since no explicit temporal reference falls within that month, we cannot confirm that Chevalier De Rohan was physically present at Fontainebleau during the specified period. Therefore the evidence does not satisfy the criteria for a positive classification.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chevalier_de_g", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Chevalier De Rohan", "Chevalier De G" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chalons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Châlons" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter dated 29 October 1675 contains no reference to Chevalier De Rohan being present in or visiting Châlons. The only mention of Châlons is a comment about the Prince de Monsieur De Turenne “passing through” there, and the text discusses Chevalier De G’s battle at Altenhein. The only appearance of Chevalier De Rohan is his meeting with Madame D’ in Fontainebleau, which is unrelated to Châlons. Since no passage indicates that Chevalier De Rohan was physically present in Châlons before 1666, there is no evidence supporting the claim.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated 1 September 1675, but the required date window for presence is the 30‑day period ending on the publication date (i.e., roughly mid‑August to early September 1666). The only mention of “Châlons” in the text concerns Monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne passing through there; it does not involve Chevalier De Rohan. Moreover, the text contains no reference to Chevalier De Rohan being at Châlons or any other location within that 30‑day window. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at Châlons in the relevant timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_consarbricq", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Consarbricq" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chalons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Châlons" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter dated 29 October 1675 contains no statement that the person “Consarbricq” was physically present in Châlons before the document’s publication date (1666). The only reference to Consarbricq is a mention of his trousseau, unrelated to any location. The text does note that “monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons,” but this refers to the Prince, not Consarbricq. Consequently there is no evidence in the document indicating that Consarbricq was at Châlons prior to 1666.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated 29 October 1675 (and earlier). The only reference to “Consarbricq” in the text concerns his military equipment (“la trousse à celui de Consarbricq”) and a battle at Altenhein; it does not state that he was present in Châlons. The passage about the Prince of Monsieur De Turenne passing through Châlons mentions no connection with Consarbricq. Consequently, there is no explicit evidence that Consarbricq was physically present at Châlons within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (30 September – 29 October 1675). Therefore we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_turenne", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Monsieur De Turenne" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv_Q2968914_chaseu", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2968914", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chaseu" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter dated 29 October 1675 contains a reference to “monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons,” indicating that he was in Châlons, not Chaseu. No other part of the text mentions Monsieur De Turenne being at or visiting Chaseu before the publication date (1666). Since there is no evidence of his presence at Chaseu prior to 1666, we cannot confirm that he was physically present there.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated 29 October 1675 and concerns a letter written by Comte De Bussy to Madame De S. at Chaseu. It mentions Monsieur De Turenne only in passing (“ce qu’ a dit monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons”), indicating that he was in Châlons, not at Chaseu. The text contains no statement that Monsieur De Turenne himself was physically present at Chaseu within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date (which is set as 1666). Moreover, the dates in the letter are from 1675, far outside the required timeframe of early 1666. Therefore there is no explicit evidence that Monsieur De Turenne was at Chaseu during the specified period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_madame_de", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Madame De" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chalons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Châlons" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The text contains a letter dated 29 October 1675 from the Comte de Bussy to “Madame De S.”, addressed from Chaseu (Chaseu). The only reference to Madame De is in a separate anecdote about her meeting at Fontainebleau; no mention of her being present in Châlons appears anywhere. Since there is no evidence that she was physically in Châlons before the document’s publication date (1666), we conclude that the claim cannot be supported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a letter dated 29 October 1675 from Comte de Bussy to Madame De S. The only mention of Châlons in the passage is “En me disant que vos lettres ne sont pas dignes de mon approbation, madame,” which does not indicate that Madame De was physically present there; it merely references her letters. Moreover, the document’s publication date is given as 1666, while all dates within the text are in 1675 (e.g., “ce 29 octobre 1675”). Thus there is no evidence that Madame De was at Châlons within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date. Consequently, we cannot confirm her presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_altenhein", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Altenhein" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chalons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Châlons" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a letter dated 1675 that mentions “monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons.” This indicates the Prince’s presence at Châlons, but it does not name or reference any individual named “Altenhein” being there. The only mention of “Altenhein” in the text is as part of a phrase about a battle (“Chevalier De G a été heureux au combat d’ Altenhein”), which refers to a different person and location, not Châlons. There is no sentence or clause that explicitly states that Altenhein was at Châlons before 1666. Consequently, the text provides no evidence of the person’s presence in the specified location prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document’s publication date is 29 October 1675, so the relevant window is roughly from 30 September 1675 to 29 October 1675. \n- The only reference to “Châlons” in the text concerns Monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne passing through that city; it does not mention any person named “Altenhein.” \n- The only reference to “Altenhein” is a separate clause about “le Chevalier De G having been happy at the battle of Altenhein,” which places him in a different location and timeframe. \n\nThere is no sentence that explicitly states that a person called “Altenhein” was present in Châlons within the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date. Therefore, the required evidence does not exist.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_s_", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "S." ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_chalons", "loc_wikidata_QID": null, "loc_mentions_list": [ "Châlons" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter is dated 29 October 1675 and concerns a correspondence with “Madame De S.” at Chaseu. The only reference to Châlons in the text is that “monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons,” indicating the Prince’s presence there, not the person S. No sentence or clause places S physically in Châlons before 1666. Therefore there is no evidence of S being at Châlons prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated 29 October 1675 and refers to a letter written that day. It mentions “passing à Châlons” in the context of Monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne, but it does not name or indicate any presence of the person “S.” at that location. Moreover, the only date provided is 29 October 1675, which lies far outside the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (the publication year given is 1666). Since there is no explicit statement that S. was in Châlons within the required timeframe, we cannot confirm his presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_monsieur_le_prince", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "monsieur le prince" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv_Q2968914_chaseu", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2968914", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chaseu" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a letter dated 29 October 1675, addressed to someone at “Chaseu.” It contains references to “monsieur le prince” only in the context of his passing through Châlons (“Ce qu’ a dit monsieur le prince de Monsieur De Turenne en passant à Châlons”). No mention is made that the prince himself was present in Chaseu, nor any other evidence linking him to that location. Since the required presence must occur before the document’s publication date (1666), and the text provides no such indication, we conclude there is no supporting evidence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is dated “29 octobre 1675,” which lies far outside the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of **1666** (i.e., early January 1666). The only mention of “monsieur le prince” in the text refers to him passing through **Châlons**, not Chaseu, and there is no explicit statement that he was present at Chaseu within the required timeframe. Consequently, the text provides no evidence that the person was physically present at Chaseu during the 30‑day window before the document’s publication date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_seule", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Madame D' seule" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv_Q2968914_chaseu", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2968914", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chaseu" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The letter dated 29 October 1675 is addressed to “Madame De S.” and mentions Chaseu only as the place of that address, not as a location where Madame D’ seule was present. The only mention of Madame D’ seule in the text occurs elsewhere: she is described as having been at Fontainebleau when Chevalier De Rohan met her there. This anecdote provides no evidence of her being in Chaseu before 1666, and the letter itself does not state that she was physically present there. Consequently, there is no textual support for Madame D’ seule’s presence at Chaseu prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document is a letter dated 29 October 1675, and it contains no reference to Madame D’ seule being in Chaseu. The only mention of her is “Madame D’ seule qui passoit dans une galerie” at Fontainebleau, which occurs elsewhere in the text and does not involve Chaseu. Moreover, the publication date given for this task is 1666, so any presence would have to be within roughly one month before that (i.e., between late September 1665 and early October 1666). The letter’s content and dates are from 1675, far outside that window. Consequently there is no explicit evidence in the text that Madame D’ seule was physically present at Chaseu within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv-NIL_consarbricq", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Consarbricq" ], "loc_entity_id": "1666_Bussy_Lettres_chunk38.tsv_Q2968914_chaseu", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2968914", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Chaseu" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The document is a letter dated 29 October 1675 addressed to “Madame De S. à Chaseu.” It contains no mention of the person “Consarbricq” being in or visiting Chaseu, nor does it provide any date or reference that would place him there before 1666. The only reference to Consarbricq is a brief note about his trousseau (“la trousse à celui de Consarbricq”), which is unrelated to location. Since the text offers no evidence of Consarbricq’s presence at Chaseu prior to the publication date, we conclude that there is no supporting information.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document contains no explicit statement that “Consarbricq” was physically present at “Chaseu” within the 30‑day window preceding its publication (which would be around August 1666). The only reference to Consarbricq is a fragment (“la trousse à celui de Consarbricq”) that does not mention location or date. Moreover, the dated portion of the text (“Réponse du Comte De Bussy … ce 1 septembre 1675”) falls far outside the required timeframe and concerns a different person (De Bussy). Consequently there is no evidence in the text satisfying the criteria for presence at Chaseu within the specified window.", "CORRECT": true } ] }, { "document_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv", "media": { "publication_title": "Perouse Voyage chunk3594", "time_period": "1797", "source_type": "Literary text" }, "source": "data/input/presto_max_v6.txt", "date": "1797", "language": "fr", "text": " Il semble par les commentaires de César, qu' il y avoit une autre Gergovia dans le pays des Boyens ; mais cette seconde ville est encore moins connue que la précédente, quoique l' opinion commune la place vers Moulins dans le Bourbonnois. Voyez les mémoires de l' académie des Belles - Lettres, où vous trouverez une dissertation de M. Lancelot à ce sujet. ( D. J. ) GERIS * GERIS, s. f. ( Myth. ) nom d' une divinité qu' Hésychius croit être la même que Cerès ou la Terre. GERMAIN GERMAIN, adj. ( Jurispr. ) est une qualité que l'on donne à certains parens, & qui a deux significations différentes. On dit fieres & soeurs germains, pour exprimer ceux qui sont conjoints des deux côtés, c' est - à - dire qui sont procréés des mêmes pere & mere. On appelle cousins - germains, les enfans des deux freres, ou des deux soeurs, ou d' un frere & d' une soeur. Cousins issus de germain, sont ceux qui sont éloignés d' un degré de plus que les cousins - germains. Voyez Freres & Cousins. ( A ) Germain - en - Laye, ( Saint - ) Géog. petite ville de l' île de France, avec une maison royale, embellie par plusieurs de nos rois. C' est un des plus beaux séjours de France par sa position, sa forêt & ses jardins. Elle est à quatre lieues de Paris sur la Seine. Long. 19. 40. lat. 48. 52. Marguerite de France, fille de François premier, naquit à Saint - Germain - en - Laye le 5 Juin 1523, & se fit une gloire immortelle par sa beauté, par son savoir & par ses vertus. Ses sujets la nommoient la mere des peuples. Henri II. né dans le même château le 31 Mai 1518, & moit à Paris le 10 Juillet 1559, d' un coup de lance que lui donna Montgommeri dans un tournois, persécuta les Calvinistes de son royaume, soûtint ceux d' Allemagne, fit alliance avec les Suisses, qui s' y prêterent avec peine, & fut soûmis dès le commencement de son regne aux volontés de la duchesse de Valentinois, qui se rendit maîtresse de son coeur & de son esprit, quoiqu' elle fût âgée de quarante - sept ans. Charles IX. ", "sampled_pairs": [ { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_francois_premier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François premier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q1471_seine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1471", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Seine" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that Marguerite de France, daughter of François premier, was born in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye and that this town lies “à quatre lieues de Paris sur la Seine.” This indicates the town is close to the river but does not state that François premier himself ever visited or stood on the Seine. The text provides no mention of him traveling to, residing at, or being physically present in the Seine itself before 1797. Therefore there is no direct evidence supporting his presence at the specified location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to the Seine only in the context of geographic coordinates for Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye (“C’est un des plus beaux séjours de France par sa position, sa forêt & ses jardins. Elle est à quatre lieues de Paris sur la Seine.”). It does not state that François premier was physically present at the Seine or even in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye during any time period. The only mention of François premier is as the father of Marguerite, with no accompanying location or date evidence. Since there is no explicit statement linking François premier to the Seine within a month before the document’s publication (1797), the required presence cannot be confirmed.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_francois_premier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François premier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Marguerite de France, fille de François premier” was born at Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye on 5 June 1523. It also mentions Henri II’s birth in the same château but does not state that François I himself was physically present in Paris or any other location within the text. The only reference to Paris is the later mention of Henri II being “moit à Paris” (likely meaning he died there), which concerns a different person and occurs long after the relevant time period. Since the document provides no explicit evidence that François I was in Paris before 1797, we cannot confirm his presence at that location.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains a reference to “François premier” only in the sentence: “Marguerite de France, fille de François premier, naquit à Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye le 5 Juin 1523.” This statement records his daughter’s birthplace and date, but it does not mention any presence of François premier himself in Paris. The only other references to Paris in the passage concern Henri II (who was “moit à Paris le 10 Juillet 1559”) and are unrelated to François premier. No sentence or clause within the document indicates that François premier was physically present in Paris, nor does it provide a date within the 30‑day window preceding the publication date of 1797 (i.e., roughly August 1796–September 1797). Therefore there is no explicit evidence that François premier was in Paris during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_francois_premier", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "François premier" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q60847808_saint_-_germain_-_en_-_laye", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q60847808", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Saint - Germain - en - Laye", "Germain - en - Laye" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states: “Marguerite de France, fille de François premier, naquit à Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye le 5 Juin 1523.” The phrase “naquit à” indicates that Marguerite was born in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye. For a child to be born there, her father must have been physically present at the location at that time (or at least within its jurisdiction). Since the birth occurred before 1797 and the text explicitly links François premier with this place, it provides direct evidence of his presence in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye prior to the document’s publication date. No contradictory information is present.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Marguerite de France was the daughter of François premier and that she was born in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye on 5 June 1523. It contains no mention of François premier himself being present at that location, nor any dates or events involving him within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (1797). Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye during that period, we cannot confirm it. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that Henri II “moit à Paris le 10 Juillet 1559,” indicating his presence in Paris on that date, which is well before the document’s publication year of 1797. This direct mention provides clear evidence of Henri II’s physical presence at the specified location prior to the document’s date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text states that “Henri II… né dans le même château le 31 Mai 1518, & moit à Paris le 10 Juillet 1559.” Both dates are in the early‑16th century (1518 and 1559), well outside the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date of 1797 (which would be from 25 Aug 1796 to 25 Aug 1797). No other part of the text mentions Henri II being in Paris within that timeframe. Therefore there is no evidence that Henri II was physically present at Paris during the required period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_marguerite_de_france", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Marguerite de France" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q1471_seine", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q1471", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Seine" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": false, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage records that Marguerite de France was born in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye on 5 June 1523 and notes the proximity of that town to the Seine (“Elle est à quatre lieues de Paris sur la Seine”). However, it contains no statement indicating that she herself visited or was physically present at the Seine. The text only describes the location of her birthplace relative to the river; there is no evidence of Marguerite’s presence on the Seine before 1797. Therefore we conclude that the claim is unsupported.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document records that Marguerite de France was born in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye on 5 June 1523, and notes the proximity of this town to the Seine River. However, there is no mention of her being at the Seine or any event involving her within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication date (i.e., between 28 August 1796 and 28 September 1797). The text only references historical events unrelated to Marguerite’s presence in that period. Therefore, there is no explicit evidence that she was physically present at the Seine within the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": false }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_marguerite_de_france", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Marguerite de France" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q60847808_saint_-_germain_-_en_-_laye", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q60847808", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Saint - Germain - en - Laye", "Germain - en - Laye" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage explicitly states that “Marguerite de France, fille de François premier, naquit à Saint - Germain - en - Laye le 5 Juin 1523.” The phrase “naquit à” (born at) indicates she was physically present in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye at the time of her birth. Since this event occurred in 1523, well before the document’s publication date of 1797, it provides direct evidence that Marguerite de France was indeed present at that location prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document provides only a biographical fact: “Marguerite de France … naquit à Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye le 5 Juin 1523.” This is a 16th‑century birth date, far outside the required window (the publication year is 1797, so the relevant period is roughly August 1796 to September 1797). The text contains no mention of Marguerite being in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye during that time, nor any other event linking her presence to the location within the month before publication. Consequently there is no evidence supporting her physical presence at the specified location in the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q60847808_saint_-_germain_-_en_-_laye", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q60847808", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Saint - Germain - en - Laye", "Germain - en - Laye" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that Henri II was “né dans le même château” and gives the date of his birth, 31 May 1518. Being born in a place implies he was physically present there at that time. Since this event occurred well before the document’s publication date (1797), Henri II was indeed present at Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes that Henri II was “né dans le même château” (the castle at Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye) on 31 May 1518, and later “moit à Paris le 10 Juillet 1559.” These dates are far earlier than the publication date of 1797. The text contains no mention of Henri II being in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye within the 30‑day window preceding 1797 (i.e., between 26 August 1796 and 25 September 1797). Since Henri II died long before that period, there is no evidence of his physical presence at the location in the required timeframe. Therefore the claim cannot be supported.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_marguerite_de_france", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Marguerite de France" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q90_paris", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q90", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Paris" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage records that Marguerite de France was born in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye on 5 June 1523 and notes her achievements, but it contains no reference to her traveling or residing in Paris before the document’s publication date (1797). The only mention of Paris in the text concerns Henri II, not Marguerite. Therefore there is no evidence that she was physically present in Paris prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document provides the following information about Marguerite de France: she was born at Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye on 5 June 1523. The text does not state that she ever visited Paris, nor does it contain any date or event linking her presence in Paris to a period within 30 days before the publication date of 1797 (i.e., between 18 August 1796 and 17 September 1797). The only mention of Paris in the passage concerns Henri II, who was “moit à Paris” on 10 July 1559—a date far earlier than the required window. Since there is no explicit evidence that Marguerite de France was physically present in Paris during the relevant timeframe, we cannot confirm her presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_lancelot", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M. Lancelot" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q2922260_bourbonnois", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2922260", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourbonnois" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “Voyez les mémoires de l’ académie des Belles‑Lettres, où vous trouverez une dissertation de M. Lancelot à ce sujet.” It refers to a dissertation on the subject of Gergovia and its relation to the Bourbonnois region, but it does not state that Lancelot himself was physically present in Bourbonnois or that he traveled there. The text merely indicates that his work concerns the topic; it provides no evidence of his presence at the location before 1797. Therefore, based on the available information, we cannot confirm that M. Lancelot was in Bourbonnois prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes a “dissertation of M. Lancelot” concerning the topic, but it does not state that Lancelot himself was in Bourbonnois or that he visited the region. The only mention of Bourbonnois is an opinion about the location of a city relative to Moulins, with no explicit claim of Lancelot’s presence there. Since the text provides no evidence of his physical presence at the specified location within the 30‑day window before the publication date (1797), we cannot confirm that he was present.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q184883_moulins", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q184883", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Moulins" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that “par les commentaires de César” there is a reference to another city and that the common opinion places it near Moulins. This indicates that César’s remarks mention Moulins, but it does not state that César himself was physically present at or in Moulins. The text provides no direct evidence of his presence—no mention of travel, residence, or an event involving him at that location before 1797. Therefore there is no support for the claim that César was at Moulins prior to the document’s publication date.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage notes “par les commentaires de César” and mentions that an opinion places a city near Moulins in the Bourbonnais. It does not state that César himself was physically present in Moulins; it merely cites his comments as evidence of scholarly view. The text contains no date or explicit statement indicating César’s presence at Moulins within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1796‑08‑25 to 1797‑08‑25). Therefore there is no direct evidence that César was present in Moulins during that period.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_cesar", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "César" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q2922260_bourbonnois", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2922260", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourbonnois" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage mentions “par les commentaires de César” and then discusses a location (“vers Bourbonnois”). This indicates that César’s remarks refer to the opinion about the city’s placement, not that he himself was physically present in Bourbonnois. There is no mention of César traveling there, attending an event, or being located at the place. Therefore, the text provides no evidence that César was at Bourbonnois before 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage cites “par les commentaires de César” and notes an opinion that places a town toward Moulins in the Bourbonnois region, but it does not state that César himself was physically present there. There is no explicit mention of César’s presence at Bourbonnois or any date within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). The only reference to César is his comments on a different location, and the text merely references an opinion about the region, not his physical presence. Therefore there is no evidence that César was in Bourbonnois during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_d_j_", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "D. J." ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q184883_moulins", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q184883", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Moulins" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses the presence of a town called Gergovia and mentions “Moulins” only as a reference point for an opinion, not as a location where D. J. was present. The abbreviation “( D. J.)” appears in parentheses after the sentence about the academic memoirs; it does not indicate any physical presence or travel to Moulins. No other part of the text links D. J. with Moulins, nor does it provide a date or event that would place him there before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence in the document that D. J. was physically present at Moulins prior to its publication.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text contains the name “D. J.” only as a parenthetical reference in a sentence about Gergovia, with no accompanying location or temporal marker that ties D. J. to Moulins. The document’s publication date is 1797, so any evidence of presence would need to be within roughly August‑September 1796 to September 28 1797. Since the text provides neither a date nor an explicit statement that D. J. was in Moulins during that window, there is no direct support for his presence at that location within the required timeframe. Therefore we cannot confirm that D. J. was physically present at Moulins near the publication date.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_lancelot", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "M. Lancelot" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q184883_moulins", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q184883", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Moulins" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that a dissertation by “M. Lancelot” exists in the Académie des Belles‑Lettres concerning the subject, but it contains no mention of Lancelot’s presence or travel to any place, let alone Moulins. The only reference to Moulins is as a location where opinions about Gergovia are placed; there is no indication that Lancelot himself was physically in Moulins before 1797. Therefore the text provides no evidence of his presence at that site.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage cites “M. Lancelot” as the author of a dissertation on the subject, but it does not state that he himself was physically present in Moulins or provide any date linking his presence to that location. The only mention of Moulins is that it is the place where opinions are placed, without indicating Lancelot’s visit. Since there is no explicit evidence of his presence at Moulins within the 30‑day window ending on 1797, the claim cannot be confirmed.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_marguerite_de_france", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Marguerite de France" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q142_france", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q142", "loc_mentions_list": [ "île de France", "France" ], "at": "TRUE", "SYS_at": "TRUE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage states that “Marguerite de France … naquit à Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye le 5 Juin 1523.” Since Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye is a small town on the Île de France, being born there implies she was physically present at that location (the island) before the document’s publication date of 1797. Therefore there is explicit evidence that Marguerite was in the specified place prior to 1797.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The text provides a biographical note about Marguerite de France, stating she was born in Saint‑Germain‑en‑Laye on 5 June 1523. It does not mention her being present at the island of France or any other location during the period leading up to the document’s publication date (1797). The only reference to “île de France, France” is a generic locational label without any associated person or timeframe. Since there is no explicit evidence that Marguerite was physically present at that location within roughly 30 days before 1797, we cannot confirm her presence.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q32102_cerès", "pers_wikidata_QID": "Q32102", "pers_mentions_list": [ "Cerès" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q2922260_bourbonnois", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q2922260", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Bourbonnois" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage discusses a second town called Gergovia, noting that opinions place it near Moulins within the “Bourbonnois” region. It does not mention any person named Cerès being in or visiting Bourbonnois; the only reference to Cerès is as a deity identified by Hésychius, unrelated to geography. Since there is no textual evidence linking Cerès to the Bourbonnois area before 1797, we cannot confirm his presence.", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The passage discusses a mythological figure named “Cerès” as a deity identified with Geris or Earth. It contains no statement that Cerès himself was physically present in the region called Bourbonnois, nor does it provide any date or event linking Cerès to that location within the 30‑day window preceding the document’s publication (1797). The only mention of Bourbonnois is a reference to “Moulins dans le Bourbonnois,” which concerns a different person and place. Therefore there is no explicit evidence in the text that Cerès was present at Bourbonnois during the required timeframe.", "CORRECT": true }, { "pers_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv-NIL_henri", "pers_wikidata_QID": null, "pers_mentions_list": [ "Henri II" ], "loc_entity_id": "1797_Perouse_Voyage_chunk3594.tsv_Q183_allemagne", "loc_wikidata_QID": "Q183", "loc_mentions_list": [ "Allemagne" ], "at": "FALSE", "SYS_at": "FALSE", "CORRECT_at": true, "SYS_at_explanation": "The passage notes that Henri II was “moit à Paris le 10 Juillet 1559, d' un coup de lance que lui donna Montgommeri dans un tournois, persécuta les Calvinistes de son royaume, soûtint ceux d' Allemagne.” This indicates that Henri II was in France (Paris) and that he suppressed Calvinists within his kingdom; the reference to “ceux d' Allemagne” refers to those Calvinists from Germany who were also targeted, not to Henri’s physical presence there. No sentence or clause states that Henri himself traveled to or was located in Germany before 1797. Therefore there is no evidence of his presence at the location “Allemagne.”", "isAt": "FALSE", "SYS_isAt": "FALSE", "CORRECT_isAt": true, "SYS_isAt_explanation": "The document discusses Henri II’s birth and later events, but it only notes his residence in France (Paris) and provides dates from the mid‑16th century. There is no mention of him traveling to or being present in “Allemagne” during any time period that falls within 30 days before the publication date of 1797 (i.e., between 28 August 1796 and 28 September 1797). Consequently, the text provides no evidence that Henri II was physically present in Allemagne within the required window. Therefore the correct classification is FALSE.", "CORRECT": true } ] } ]