Triple

T16151471
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney E391917 entity
Predicate relatedCase P3137 FINISHED
Object Washington v. Davis E94545 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: Washington v. Davis | Statement: [Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, relatedCase, Washington v. Davis]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Washington v. Davis
Context triple: [Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, relatedCase, Washington v. Davis]
  • A. Washington v. Davis chosen
    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.
  • B. 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.
  • C. 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.
  • D. Bucklew v. Precythe
    Bucklew v. Precythe is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld Missouri’s method of execution against an Eighth Amendment challenge, clarifying the standards for inmates claiming that a particular execution protocol would cause them severe pain.
  • E. Blakely v. Washington
    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.
  • 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_69d87f1c65e48190aa2b4c472e9bafc4 completed April 10, 2026, 4:39 a.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e21d981950819087fdacc7879dca97 completed April 17, 2026, 11:46 a.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69fff7a9ebf08190aa21cdff051f4ba2 completed May 10, 2026, 3:12 a.m.
Created at: April 10, 2026, 5:01 a.m.