Triple
T126054
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution |
E2552
|
entity |
| Predicate | keyCase |
P4528
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Miranda v. Arizona |
E8268
|
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: Miranda v. Arizona | Statement: [Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, keyCase, Miranda v. Arizona]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Miranda v. Arizona Context triple: [Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, keyCase, Miranda v. Arizona]
-
A.
Miranda v. Arizona
chosen
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
-
B.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
-
C.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
-
D.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
E.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
- 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_69a251b54ea88190b18281669f59b4c0 |
completed | Feb. 28, 2026, 2:23 a.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69a25b816dbc8190b20e13c80a451e6b |
completed | Feb. 28, 2026, 3:05 a.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69a2b85e7e4881909322c67388d64247 |
completed | Feb. 28, 2026, 9:41 a.m. |
Created at: Feb. 28, 2026, 2:27 a.m.