Triple

T11531291
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Warren Burger Court E273427 entity
Predicate notableCase P4 FINISHED
Object Milliken v. Bradley E33464 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: Milliken v. Bradley | Statement: [Warren Burger Court, notableCase, Milliken v. Bradley]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Milliken v. Bradley
Context triple: [Warren Burger Court, notableCase, Milliken v. Bradley]
  • A. Milliken v. Bradley chosen
    Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
  • B. Briggs v. Elliott
    Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
  • C. Bolling v. Sharpe
    Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
  • D. Regan v. Wald
    Regan v. Wald is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal restrictions on travel to Cuba, affirming broad executive authority over foreign affairs and economic sanctions.
  • E. Washington v. Davis
    Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
  • 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_69d6aae3fbec8190a14632a5df2538b6 completed April 8, 2026, 7:22 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69d8839878948190b170e64629d6f2db completed April 10, 2026, 4:59 a.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69e6856341b481909d2ee71893e6117b completed April 20, 2026, 7:58 p.m.
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:37 p.m.