Triple

T11257167
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Roper v. Simmons E266467 entity
Predicate precedentType P3138 FINISHED
Object binding precedent on all U.S. state and federal courts LITERAL 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: binding precedent on all U.S. state and federal courts | Statement: [Roper v. Simmons, precedentType, binding precedent on all U.S. state and federal courts]
PD Predicate disambiguation gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: precedentType
Context triple: [Roper v. Simmons, precedentType, binding precedent on all U.S. state and federal courts]
  • A. precedentFor chosen
    Indicates that one situation, decision, or case serves as an authoritative example or basis for deciding or interpreting another.
  • B. precedentSystem
    Indicates that one legal system or framework serves as a source of precedent or authoritative guidance for another system.
  • C. typicalPrecedent
    Indicates that one situation, case, or event serves as a standard or commonly followed example for how similar later situations are handled.
  • D. precedentInterpreted
    Indicates that one legal precedent is interpreted or understood in a particular way, often as clarified or applied in subsequent decisions or analyses.
  • E. modifiedPrecedent
    Indicates that one entity has altered, qualified, or changed the terms, scope, or interpretation of a prior decision, rule, or precedent.
  • F. None of above.

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_69d6aac7953c8190b82caf9d7640fdf9 completed April 8, 2026, 7:21 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69d7e935b85c819085e1abf2dd4099c5 completed April 9, 2026, 6 p.m.
PD Predicate disambiguation batch_69d78793c00481908a3f764b610b77a4 completed April 9, 2026, 11:03 a.m.
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:31 p.m.