Triple
T20507869
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Missouri–Iowa border |
E503481
|
entity |
| Predicate | hasCourtCase |
P17092
|
FINISHED |
| Object | State of Missouri v. State of Iowa |
—
|
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: State of Missouri v. State of Iowa | Statement: [Missouri–Iowa border, hasCourtCase, State of Missouri v. State of Iowa]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: State of Missouri v. State of Iowa Context triple: [Missouri–Iowa border, hasCourtCase, State of Missouri v. State of Iowa]
-
A.
Cummings v. Missouri
Cummings v. Missouri was an 1867 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down post–Civil War loyalty oath requirements as unconstitutional bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.
-
B.
Missouri statehood controversy
The Missouri statehood controversy was an early 19th-century political conflict over the expansion of slavery into new U.S. territories, culminating in the Missouri Compromise and exposing deep sectional tensions between North and South.
-
C.
Missouri v. Frye
Missouri v. Frye is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that held defense counsel has a duty to communicate formal plea offers to a criminal defendant as part of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
-
D.
Missouri v. Seibert
Missouri v. Seibert is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited police use of "question-first, warn-later" interrogation tactics by strengthening Miranda protections for suspects.
-
E.
Alabama v. Texas
Alabama v. Texas is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed a dispute among states over offshore submerged lands and the scope of federal authority under the Constitution.
- 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: State of Missouri v. State of Iowa Target entity description: State of Missouri v. State of Iowa was an 1849 U.S. Supreme Court case that resolved a boundary dispute between Missouri and Iowa over their shared state line.
-
A.
Cummings v. Missouri
Cummings v. Missouri was an 1867 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down post–Civil War loyalty oath requirements as unconstitutional bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.
-
B.
Missouri statehood controversy
The Missouri statehood controversy was an early 19th-century political conflict over the expansion of slavery into new U.S. territories, culminating in the Missouri Compromise and exposing deep sectional tensions between North and South.
-
C.
Missouri v. Frye
Missouri v. Frye is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that held defense counsel has a duty to communicate formal plea offers to a criminal defendant as part of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
-
D.
Missouri v. Seibert
Missouri v. Seibert is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited police use of "question-first, warn-later" interrogation tactics by strengthening Miranda protections for suspects.
-
E.
Alabama v. Texas
Alabama v. Texas is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed a dispute among states over offshore submerged lands and the scope of federal authority under the Constitution.
- 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_69e0b4b1e52c8190894281cf7e3283ab |
completed | April 16, 2026, 10:06 a.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69e69dc8f3c881908ed2e0257a057e73 |
completed | April 20, 2026, 9:42 p.m. |
Created at: April 16, 2026, 11:36 a.m.