Triple
T20633464
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Edwards v. California |
E507014
|
entity |
| Predicate | separateOpinion |
P2235
|
FINISHED |
| Object | concurrence by Justice William O. Douglas |
—
|
LITERAL FINISHED |
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: concurrence by Justice William O. Douglas | Statement: [Edwards v. California, separateOpinion, concurrence by Justice William O. Douglas]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: separateOpinion Context triple: [Edwards v. California, separateOpinion, concurrence by Justice William O. Douglas]
-
A.
hasSeparateOpinions
Indicates that the related entities hold distinct or differing views, judgments, or beliefs about a subject.
-
B.
opinionBy
chosen
Indicates that a particular opinion, viewpoint, or judgment is expressed or held by a specific entity.
-
C.
hasDifferentOpinionsOn
Indicates that two or more entities hold differing views or judgments regarding a particular topic, issue, or subject.
-
D.
pluralityOpinionBy
Indicates that the referenced opinion is the controlling or majority view issued by a decision-making body, as opposed to concurring or dissenting opinions.
-
E.
arguedSeparatelyFrom
Indicates that two or more arguments or positions were presented and considered independently rather than jointly or as part of the same case or discussion.
- F. None of above.
Provenance (3 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_69e0b4bd4a0081908d4e97a590a33fb2 |
completed | April 16, 2026, 10:06 a.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69e6ad0d808c81908a60abd02a22ed92 |
completed | April 20, 2026, 10:47 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69e5a0155bd48190b3c769a12cc2c83d |
completed | April 20, 2026, 3:40 a.m. |
Created at: April 16, 2026, 11:42 a.m.