Triple
T22356395
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Article 368 of the Constitution of India |
E552661
|
entity |
| Predicate | wasSignificantlyInterpretedIn |
P112425
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Golaknath v. State of Punjab |
—
|
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: Golaknath v. State of Punjab | Statement: [Article 368 of the Constitution of India, wasSignificantlyInterpretedIn, Golaknath v. State of Punjab]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Golaknath v. State of Punjab Context triple: [Article 368 of the Constitution of India, wasSignificantlyInterpretedIn, Golaknath v. State of Punjab]
-
A.
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
chosen
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab is a landmark 1967 Indian Supreme Court case that held Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under the Constitution, sharply limiting its amending power until this view was later modified.
-
B.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
C.
M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra is a 1954 Supreme Court of India judgment that had denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution, a position later overruled by the landmark Puttaswamy decision.
-
D.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
-
E.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India is a landmark 1980 judgment of the Supreme Court of India that reaffirmed and strengthened the basic structure doctrine by limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
- 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_69e11e4a0ad08190a385b4d343cf6524 |
completed | April 16, 2026, 5:37 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f157d08b148190a9a4e445e8579219 |
completed | April 29, 2026, 12:58 a.m. |
Created at: April 16, 2026, 8:44 p.m.