Triple
T18134794
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | The Problem of Social Cost |
E434107
|
entity |
| Predicate | exampleUsed |
P1259
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Sturges v. Bridgman |
—
|
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: Sturges v. Bridgman | Statement: [The Problem of Social Cost, exampleUsed, Sturges v. Bridgman]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Sturges v. Bridgman Context triple: [The Problem of Social Cost, exampleUsed, Sturges v. Bridgman]
-
A.
Sturges v. Crowninshield
Sturges v. Crowninshield was an 1819 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited state power over bankruptcy laws by holding that state insolvency statutes could not retroactively discharge debts.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
E.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
- 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: Sturges v. Bridgman Target entity description: Sturges v. Bridgman is an 1879 English nuisance law case, often cited in legal and economic theory, involving a dispute between a doctor and a confectioner over noise and vibration from industrial machinery.
-
A.
Sturges v. Crowninshield
Sturges v. Crowninshield was an 1819 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited state power over bankruptcy laws by holding that state insolvency statutes could not retroactively discharge debts.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
E.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
- 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_69d8b909e8cc81908df4cc2b8ea6d11f |
completed | April 10, 2026, 8:47 a.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69e4de055c608190a090c2737904e5f9 |
completed | April 19, 2026, 1:52 p.m. |
Created at: April 10, 2026, 10:29 a.m.