Triple

T12141887
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Jeffrey L. Fisher E289203 entity
Predicate notableCase P4 FINISHED
Object Blakely v. Washington E649383 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: Blakely v. Washington | Statement: [Jeffrey L. Fisher, notableCase, Blakely v. Washington]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: Blakely v. Washington
Context triple: [Jeffrey L. Fisher, notableCase, Blakely v. Washington]
  • A. Blakely v. Washington chosen
    Blakely v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Apprendi rule to state sentencing guidelines, holding that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • B. Crawford v. Washington
    Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
  • C. Davis v. Washington
    Davis v. Washington is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to law enforcement are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to the rule announced in Crawford v. Washington.
  • D. 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.
  • 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_69d6ab4c6710819097a9d228382dde43 completed April 8, 2026, 7:23 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69d915a9838081909622cc14df2a2582 completed April 10, 2026, 3:22 p.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69f5f692ee048190ab42c92296fd28fb completed May 2, 2026, 1:05 p.m.
Created at: April 8, 2026, 9:49 p.m.