Triple

T17374559
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Shaw v. Hunt E422401 entity
Predicate subsequentCitationBy P15322 FINISHED
Object Easley v. Cromartie NE NERFINISHED

How this triple was built (3 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: Easley v. Cromartie | Statement: [Shaw v. Hunt, subsequentCitationBy, Easley v. Cromartie]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Easley v. Cromartie
Context triple: [Shaw v. Hunt, subsequentCitationBy, Easley v. Cromartie]
  • A. Briggs v. Elliott
    Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
  • B. Gonzales v. Williams
    Gonzales v. Williams was a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the citizenship status of Puerto Ricans following the island’s acquisition by the United States.
  • C. Edwards v. South Carolina
    Edwards v. South Carolina is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the breach-of-the-peace convictions of civil rights demonstrators, affirming their First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and assembly.
  • D. Milliken v. Bradley
    Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
  • E. Marsh v. Chambers
    Marsh v. Chambers is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayer, finding that opening legislative sessions with a state-funded chaplain’s invocation did not violate the Establishment Clause.
  • F. None of above. chosen
  • G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Easley v. Cromartie
Target entity description: Easley v. Cromartie is a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District against a racial gerrymandering challenge by finding that political, rather than racial, considerations predominated in its redistricting.
  • A. Briggs v. Elliott
    Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
  • B. Gonzales v. Williams
    Gonzales v. Williams was a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the citizenship status of Puerto Ricans following the island’s acquisition by the United States.
  • C. Edwards v. South Carolina
    Edwards v. South Carolina is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the breach-of-the-peace convictions of civil rights demonstrators, affirming their First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and assembly.
  • D. Milliken v. Bradley
    Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
  • E. Marsh v. Chambers
    Marsh v. Chambers is a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of legislative prayer, finding that opening legislative sessions with a state-funded chaplain’s invocation did not violate the Establishment Clause.
  • F. None of above. chosen

Provenance (2 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_69d889d6535c81908be333c01deaec4e completed April 10, 2026, 5:25 a.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e43a6b71148190bb10e1fac400d6c3 completed April 19, 2026, 2:14 a.m.
Created at: April 10, 2026, 5:44 a.m.