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.