Triple

T11827437
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Jacob Schwartz E281291 entity
Predicate relatedTo P37 FINISHED
Object Holmes dissent in Abrams v. United States E56207 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: Holmes dissent in Abrams v. United States | Statement: [Jacob Schwartz, relatedTo, Holmes dissent in Abrams v. United States]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: Holmes dissent in Abrams v. United States
Context triple: [Jacob Schwartz, relatedTo, Holmes dissent in Abrams v. United States]
  • A. Olmstead v. United States dissent
    The Olmstead v. United States dissent is Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s influential Supreme Court opinion arguing that wiretapping without a warrant violates constitutional privacy rights and foreshadowing modern interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.
  • B. Abrams v. United States chosen
    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.
  • C. 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.
  • D. Dickerson v. United States
    Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
  • E. Dissent in the Prize Cases (1863)
    Dissent in the Prize Cases (1863) is a notable Supreme Court opinion in which Justice Samuel Nelson argued against the majority’s validation of President Lincoln’s Civil War blockade powers.
  • 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_69d6ab276f8c8190b1966a0ef11349ac completed April 8, 2026, 7:23 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69d8a5ec3a148190bb184ba0d481b16a completed April 10, 2026, 7:25 a.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69f1671989f88190b8c1fb520435a25e completed April 29, 2026, 2:04 a.m.
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:43 p.m.