Triple

T20532627
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Roberts Court E504106 entity
Predicate landmarkCase P9728 FINISHED
Object Riley v. California 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: Riley v. California | Statement: [Roberts Court, landmarkCase, Riley v. California]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Riley v. California
Context triple: [Roberts Court, landmarkCase, Riley v. California]
  • A. Riley v. California chosen
    Riley v. California is a landmark 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized during an arrest.
  • B. Gilbert v. California
    Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
  • C. Giles v. California
    Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
  • D. Griffin v. California
    Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
  • E. Cohen v. California
    Cohen v. California is a landmark 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case that significantly expanded First Amendment protections for offensive and provocative speech in public settings.
  • 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_69e0b4b3a6e08190ae663701f50fab8e completed April 16, 2026, 10:06 a.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e6a06c709881908ef0995426a58759 completed April 20, 2026, 9:53 p.m.
Created at: April 16, 2026, 11:37 a.m.