Triple
T3821854
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. |
E88589
|
entity |
| Predicate | relatedCase |
P3137
|
FINISHED |
| Object |
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the standard for proving unconstitutional sex discrimination by requiring a showing of discriminatory intent rather than merely discriminatory impact.
|
E391917
|
NE FINISHED |
How this triple was built (4 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: Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney | Statement: [Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., relatedCase, Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney Context triple: [Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., relatedCase, Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney]
-
A.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
B.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
C.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Frontiero v. Richardson is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that advanced gender equality by striking down federal benefit rules that discriminated against female military service members.
-
D.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
-
E.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon is a state agency responsible for administering employment-related services and regulations in Oregon, including unemployment insurance and workforce programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NEDg
Description generation
gpt-5.1
Instruction
Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. # Instructions Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential. # Response Format Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"
Input
Entity: Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney Triple: [Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., relatedCase, Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney]
Generated description
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the standard for proving unconstitutional sex discrimination by requiring a showing of discriminatory intent rather than merely discriminatory impact.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney Target entity description: Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the standard for proving unconstitutional sex discrimination by requiring a showing of discriminatory intent rather than merely discriminatory impact.
-
A.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
-
B.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
C.
Frontiero v. Richardson
Frontiero v. Richardson is a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that advanced gender equality by striking down federal benefit rules that discriminated against female military service members.
-
D.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
-
E.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon is a state agency responsible for administering employment-related services and regulations in Oregon, including unemployment insurance and workforce programs.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (5 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_69aed9538cf881909d9ce8ca4ac7c18c |
completed | March 9, 2026, 2:29 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69aeea62cdfc81909a3bf458b73d60e7 |
completed | March 9, 2026, 3:42 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69b4fb4998248190b4174dd80a8e790c |
completed | March 14, 2026, 6:08 a.m. |
| NEDg | Description generation | batch_69b4ffcf7e24819098cf2e46b92bed4a |
completed | March 14, 2026, 6:27 a.m. |
| NED2 | Entity disambiguation (via description) | batch_69b500596e308190a31e44c24de3f31d |
completed | March 14, 2026, 6:29 a.m. |
Created at: March 9, 2026, 3:17 p.m.