Triple

T22674737
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject ADA Title II E560316 entity
Predicate interpretedBy P1044 FINISHED
Object U.S. Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) — 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: U.S. Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) | Statement: [ADA Title II, interpretedBy, U.S. Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: U.S. Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)
Context triple: [ADA Title II, interpretedBy, U.S. Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)]
  • A. Olmstead v. United States chosen
    Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
  • B. New York v. Quarles
    New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
  • C. Mapp v. Ohio
    Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
  • D. Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden
    The Supreme Court decision in City of Mobile v. Bolden was a 1980 ruling that required proof of discriminatory intent in voting rights cases, prompting Congress to amend the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to restore a results-based standard.
  • E. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
    R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul is a landmark 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a local hate-speech ordinance as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
  • 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_69e2454bfd00819099115715a22cb057 completed April 17, 2026, 2:35 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69f178229e908190b696d14a93c11344 completed April 29, 2026, 3:16 a.m.
Created at: April 17, 2026, 3:10 p.m.