Triple

T21190134
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada E522189 entity
Predicate fullName P16 FINISHED
Object Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County — 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: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County | Statement: [Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, fullName, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County
Context triple: [Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, fullName, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County]
  • A. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada chosen
    Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of state "stop and identify" laws requiring suspects to disclose their names during lawful Terry stops.
  • B. Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
    Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to subject states to damages suits under the Family and Medical Leave Act as a valid exercise of its enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • C. Oregon v. Elstad
    Oregon v. Elstad is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a suspect’s later, properly Mirandized confession can be admissible even if an earlier unwarned statement was obtained in violation of Miranda.
  • D. Arizona v. Evans
    Arizona v. Evans is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained through an arrest based on erroneous computer records.
  • E. Arizona v. Fulminante
    Arizona v. Fulminante is a landmark 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a coerced confession can be treated as trial error subject to harmless-error analysis rather than as automatically requiring reversal of a conviction.
  • 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_69e0b51061388190aa03f19700d3ef04 completed April 16, 2026, 10:08 a.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e733372b488190920174955b4b9172 completed April 21, 2026, 8:20 a.m.
Created at: April 16, 2026, 3:07 p.m.