Triple

T11055116
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon E261353 entity
Predicate fullCaseName P3131 FINISHED
Object Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Oregon E261353 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: Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Oregon | Statement: [Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, fullCaseName, Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Oregon]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Oregon
Context triple: [Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, fullCaseName, Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Oregon]
  • A. Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon chosen
    Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon is a 1912 U.S. Supreme Court case that held challenges to state initiatives under the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause present nonjusticiable political questions beyond the Court’s authority to decide.
  • B. De Jonge v. Oregon
    De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
  • C. United States v. AT&T
    United States v. AT&T was a landmark antitrust lawsuit in which the U.S. government forced the breakup of the Bell System telecommunications monopoly in the early 1980s.
  • D. Oregon v. Mitchell
    Oregon v. Mitchell was a 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of federal laws regulating state and local election procedures, including provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.
  • E. Oregon v. Elstad
    Oregon v. Elstad is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a suspect’s later, properly Mirandized confession can be admissible even if an earlier unwarned statement was obtained in violation of Miranda.
  • 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_69d6aa98650481908609c7c56bfa7902 completed April 8, 2026, 7:20 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69d798a0890481909c1d4f9d5b23f33a completed April 9, 2026, 12:16 p.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69e3e74e1dc881908afc01b328cda843 completed April 18, 2026, 8:19 p.m.
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:26 p.m.