Triple
T11393019
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | The First Amendment did not bar prosecution of the defendant's antiwar publications under the circumstances of the case |
E269893
|
entity |
| Predicate | isCentralHoldingOf |
P4408
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Frohwerk v. United States |
E55132
|
NE FINISHED |
How this triple was built (3 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: Frohwerk v. United States | Statement: [The First Amendment did not bar prosecution of the defendant's antiwar publications under the circumstances of the case, isCentralHoldingOf, Frohwerk v. United States]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Frohwerk v. United States Context triple: [The First Amendment did not bar prosecution of the defendant's antiwar publications under the circumstances of the case, isCentralHoldingOf, Frohwerk v. United States]
-
A.
Frohwerk v. United States
chosen
Frohwerk v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a conviction for antiwar newspaper articles, reinforcing broad federal power to punish speech deemed obstructive to World War I military recruitment.
-
B.
Wright v. United States
Wright v. United States is a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of presidential veto power and the constitutional requirements for lawmaking under the Presentment Clause.
-
C.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
D.
Carpenter v. United States
Carpenter v. United States is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the government generally must obtain a warrant to access historical cell phone location records under the Fourth Amendment.
-
E.
United States v. Darby
United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
- F. None of above.
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: isCentralHoldingOf Context triple: [The First Amendment did not bar prosecution of the defendant's antiwar publications under the circumstances of the case, isCentralHoldingOf, Frohwerk v. United States]
-
A.
isCentralTo
chosen
Indicates that something plays a primary, essential, or defining role in relation to something else, such that the latter depends on or is organized around it.
-
B.
isCentralHubOf
Indicates that one entity functions as the primary connecting or coordinating hub for activities, resources, or interactions among multiple other entities.
-
C.
hasJurisdictionalCenter
Indicates that an administrative or legal authority is associated with a specific central location from which its jurisdiction is exercised or managed.
-
D.
isCentralLocalityOf
Indicates that a locality serves as the main or central place within a larger administrative or geographic area.
-
E.
hasCentralAct
Indicates that an entity includes or is characterized by a primary or most important action, event, or operation at its core.
- F. None of above.
Provenance (4 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_69d6aacdbc6c8190af6dc3d5f5d22836 |
completed | April 8, 2026, 7:21 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69d8001796f48190822526f52e3f0337 |
completed | April 9, 2026, 7:37 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69e5e8cc338081908da977b5b7c6bef3 |
completed | April 20, 2026, 8:50 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69d7e70b228c8190b87f5101fd683788 |
completed | April 9, 2026, 5:51 p.m. |
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:34 p.m.