Triple
T38609823
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Missouri v. Holland |
E934445
|
entity |
| Predicate | stateChallengingFederalLaw |
P199361
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Missouri |
—
|
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: Missouri | Statement: [Missouri v. Holland, stateChallengingFederalLaw, Missouri]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: stateChallengingFederalLaw Context triple: [Missouri v. Holland, stateChallengingFederalLaw, Missouri]
-
A.
challengedStatute
Indicates that a particular statute or law is being contested, questioned, or disputed, typically in a legal or constitutional proceeding.
-
B.
stateChallenged
Indicates that a state or condition is being questioned, disputed, or formally contested by another party.
-
C.
stateLawAtIssue
Indicates that a particular state law is the subject of dispute, analysis, or determination in a given legal context or case.
-
D.
jurisdictionChallenged
Indicates that the authority or legal power of a court or governing body over a case, person, or territory is being disputed or formally contested.
-
E.
legalDoctrineChallenged
Indicates that a particular legal doctrine is being disputed, questioned, or contested, typically through litigation or formal legal argument.
- 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_69f76eccd6d081909ccce171011739a1 |
completed | May 3, 2026, 3:50 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69ff2fbae9b48190847eefa1c227d43e |
completed | May 9, 2026, 12:59 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69ff2f2218048190a32224a648182b5d |
completed | May 9, 2026, 12:57 p.m. |
| PDg | Predicate description generation | batch_69ff2fb9e46c8190b36b3e0bc84f114c |
completed | May 9, 2026, 12:59 p.m. |
Created at: May 3, 2026, 4:32 p.m.