Triple
T2533141
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Abrams v. United States |
E56207
|
entity |
| Predicate | standardDiscussedInDissent |
P39427
|
FINISHED |
| Object | clear and present danger test |
—
|
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: clear and present danger test | Statement: [Abrams v. United States, standardDiscussedInDissent, clear and present danger test]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: standardDiscussedInDissent Context triple: [Abrams v. United States, standardDiscussedInDissent, clear and present danger test]
-
A.
dissentingJustice
Indicates that a particular justice disagrees with the majority opinion or decision in a legal case.
-
B.
hasDissentingJustice
Indicates that within a judicial decision or ruling, there exists at least one justice who formally disagrees with the majority opinion.
-
C.
dissentClaimed
Indicates that an entity has expressed disagreement or opposition to a claim made by another entity.
-
D.
concurrenceInPartAndDissentInPartBy
Indicates that one party agrees with part of a decision or opinion and disagrees with another part, in relation to another party’s position.
-
E.
concurringJustice
Indicates that a justice agrees with the court’s judgment or outcome but writes or joins a separate concurring opinion expressing different or additional reasoning.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (4 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_69ab4a49b6508190bc467fbef4bac334 |
completed | March 6, 2026, 9:42 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69abd27afe7c8190984e10d3f3d5586b |
completed | March 7, 2026, 7:23 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69abd0c2e34c8190a914d5c2afba147c |
completed | March 7, 2026, 7:16 a.m. |
| PDg | Predicate description generation | batch_69abd18e72a88190bdcf12b326d42fad |
completed | March 7, 2026, 7:19 a.m. |
Created at: March 6, 2026, 9:47 p.m.