Triple

T10673684
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Taney Court E251558 entity
Predicate hasNotableDecision P21812 FINISHED
Object Prigg v. Pennsylvania E261348 NE FINISHED

How this triple was built (2 steps)

Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.

NER Named-entity recognition gpt-5-mini
Instruction
Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).
Input
Phrase: Prigg v. Pennsylvania | Statement: [Taney Court, hasNotableDecision, Prigg v. Pennsylvania]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Prigg v. Pennsylvania
Context triple: [Taney Court, hasNotableDecision, Prigg v. Pennsylvania]
  • A. Prigg v. Pennsylvania chosen
    Prigg v. Pennsylvania was an 1842 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal supremacy over state laws in enforcing the return of escaped enslaved people, significantly strengthening the legal force of the Fugitive Slave Clause.
  • B. Morgan v. Virginia
    Morgan v. Virginia was a 1946 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down state laws mandating racial segregation on interstate buses, laying important groundwork for later civil rights actions.
  • C. Paul v. Virginia
    Paul v. Virginia is an 1869 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held corporations are not “citizens” under the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, allowing states to regulate foreign insurance companies.
  • D. Cohens v. Virginia
    Cohens v. Virginia is an 1821 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s authority to review state criminal proceedings involving federal law, strengthening federal judicial power over the states.
  • E. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
    Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially discriminatory enforcement of a facially neutral law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • F. None of above.
  • G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Provenance (3 batches)

The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.

Step Stage Batch ID Status When
creating Elicitation batch_69d6aa5b0d2881909584b20efc5877f0 completed April 8, 2026, 7:19 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69d6fb9299708190a0a3818f2e4e9bf5 completed April 9, 2026, 1:06 a.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69d9886e3f108190bb6f17d4e2f394ef completed April 10, 2026, 11:31 p.m.
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:09 p.m.