Triple

T20023764
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act E494923 entity
Predicate relatedCaseLaw P3137 FINISHED
Object Osborn v. Haley 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: Osborn v. Haley | Statement: [Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, relatedCaseLaw, Osborn v. Haley]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Osborn v. Haley
Context triple: [Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, relatedCaseLaw, Osborn v. Haley]
  • A. Ray v. Blair
    Ray v. Blair is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state's authority to require presidential electors to pledge support for their party's nominees as a condition of appointment.
  • B. Easley v. Cromartie
    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.
  • C. Hurd v. Hodge
    Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
  • D. 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.
  • E. Shaw v. Hunt
    Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
  • 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: Osborn v. Haley
Target entity description: Osborn v. Haley is a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of federal employee immunity and the substitution of the United States as defendant under the Westfall Act in tort suits against federal workers.
  • A. Ray v. Blair
    Ray v. Blair is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state's authority to require presidential electors to pledge support for their party's nominees as a condition of appointment.
  • B. Easley v. Cromartie
    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.
  • C. Hurd v. Hodge
    Hurd v. Hodge is a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racially restrictive covenants in property deeds could not be judicially enforced in the District of Columbia because such enforcement would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
  • D. 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.
  • E. Shaw v. Hunt
    Shaw v. Hunt is a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case that further developed the Court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence by applying and extending the principles first articulated in Shaw v. Reno.
  • 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_69da626bfd288190aa5d65098b6433ae completed April 11, 2026, 3:02 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e6628a1ecc8190bf6ee0bedb61e0b8 completed April 20, 2026, 5:29 p.m.
Created at: April 11, 2026, 3:35 p.m.