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.