Triple

T20037844
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Julius A. Wolf E497323 entity
Predicate partyToCase P15954 FINISHED
Object Wolf v. Colorado NE NERFINISHED

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: Wolf v. Colorado | Statement: [Julius A. Wolf, partyToCase, Wolf v. Colorado]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Wolf v. Colorado
Context triple: [Julius A. Wolf, partyToCase, Wolf v. Colorado]
  • A. Wolf v. Colorado chosen
    Wolf v. Colorado was a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule did not apply to the states, a position later reversed by Mapp v. Ohio.
  • B. Hill v. Colorado
    Hill v. Colorado is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a state law creating buffer zones around individuals entering healthcare facilities, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on protest and speech restrictions near abortion clinics.
  • C. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
    Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock is a 1903 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed broad congressional power over Native American tribes, effectively endorsing unilateral alteration of treaties and becoming a cornerstone of federal Indian law.
  • D. Washington v. Davis
    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.
  • E. Colorado Department of State v. Baca
    Colorado Department of State v. Baca is a U.S. federal court case addressing whether states can remove or sanction presidential electors who refuse to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote in the Electoral College.
  • F. None of above.
  • G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

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_69da627278c88190babe4297a9df1236 completed April 11, 2026, 3:02 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e662e935ac8190900cdb4f0cfde505 completed April 20, 2026, 5:31 p.m.
Created at: April 11, 2026, 3:36 p.m.