Triple
T25784475
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Apprendi v. New Jersey |
E649382
|
entity |
| Predicate | concurringInPartAndConcurringInJudgmentBy |
P4516
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Clarence Thomas |
—
|
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: Clarence Thomas | Statement: [Apprendi v. New Jersey, concurringInPartAndConcurringInJudgmentBy, Clarence Thomas]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: concurringInPartAndConcurringInJudgmentBy Context triple: [Apprendi v. New Jersey, concurringInPartAndConcurringInJudgmentBy, Clarence Thomas]
-
A.
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.
-
B.
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.
-
C.
concurringJustices
Indicates that the specified justices agreed with the court’s judgment or reasoning in the same case, typically by joining or authoring a concurring opinion.
-
D.
hasConcurringJustice
chosen
Indicates that a judicial decision is associated with a justice who wrote or joined a concurring opinion.
-
E.
dissentingJustice
Indicates that a particular justice disagrees with the majority opinion or decision in a legal case.
- 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_69e7ab33e9308190afe415dc6f9e8876 |
completed | April 21, 2026, 4:52 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f5fef935a8819083bc9cefa4a72f8e |
completed | May 2, 2026, 1:41 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69f4938b960081909b53c074a3e0c7c2 |
completed | May 1, 2026, 11:50 a.m. |
Created at: April 22, 2026, 5:53 a.m.