Triple

T3981243
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment E85762 entity
Predicate interpretedByCase P2252 FINISHED
Object South Carolina v. Katzenbach E58950 NE 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: South Carolina v. Katzenbach | Statement: [Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, interpretedByCase, South Carolina v. Katzenbach]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: South Carolina v. Katzenbach
Context triple: [Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, interpretedByCase, South Carolina v. Katzenbach]
  • A. South Carolina v. Katzenbach chosen
    South Carolina v. Katzenbach is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, affirming broad federal power to combat racial discrimination in voting.
  • B. Katzenbach v. McClung
    Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • C. Katzenbach v. Morgan
    Katzenbach v. Morgan is a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit certain state voting restrictions, reinforcing federal authority to protect voting rights.
  • D. Edwards v. South Carolina
    Edwards v. South Carolina is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned the breach-of-the-peace convictions of civil rights demonstrators, affirming their First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and assembly.
  • E. Baker v. Carr
    Baker v. Carr is a landmark 1962 U.S. Supreme Court case that established federal courts’ authority to hear legislative redistricting disputes under the Equal Protection Clause, paving the way for the “one person, one vote” principle.
  • F. None of above.
  • G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

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_69aed93908348190a26c8aaf4fab3e86 completed March 9, 2026, 2:29 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69aef9d9d8848190aa06eaf5d281fa16 completed March 9, 2026, 4:48 p.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69b54c4a769c819097fb9bfd5890a4f9 completed March 14, 2026, 11:53 a.m.
Created at: March 9, 2026, 3:33 p.m.