Triple
T10673743
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Chase Court |
E251559
|
entity |
| Predicate | notableCase |
P4
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Hepburn v. Griswold |
E452310
|
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: Hepburn v. Griswold | Statement: [Chase Court, notableCase, Hepburn v. Griswold]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hepburn v. Griswold Context triple: [Chase Court, notableCase, Hepburn v. Griswold]
-
A.
Hepburn v. Griswold
chosen
Hepburn v. Griswold was an 1870 U.S. Supreme Court decision that initially held it unconstitutional to make paper money legal tender for preexisting debts under the Civil War–era Legal Tender Acts.
-
B.
Griswold v. Connecticut
Griswold v. Connecticut is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized a constitutional right to marital privacy and struck down a state ban on contraceptive use by married couples.
-
C.
Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
-
D.
Olmstead v. United States
Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
-
E.
Crowell v. Benson
Crowell v. Benson is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the constitutional limits of administrative agencies’ fact-finding powers and the scope of judicial review over administrative adjudications.
- 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_69d98876222c8190be638bdfa3ce4ceb |
completed | April 10, 2026, 11:32 p.m. |
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:09 p.m.