Triple
T9830587
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Oregon v. Elstad |
E238771
|
entity |
| Predicate | fullCaseName |
P3131
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Oregon v. Elstad |
E238771
|
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: Oregon v. Elstad | Statement: [Oregon v. Elstad, fullCaseName, Oregon v. Elstad]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Oregon v. Elstad Context triple: [Oregon v. Elstad, fullCaseName, Oregon v. Elstad]
-
A.
Oregon v. Elstad
chosen
Oregon v. Elstad is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a suspect’s later, properly Mirandized confession can be admissible even if an earlier unwarned statement was obtained in violation of Miranda.
-
B.
Oregon v. Mitchell
Oregon v. Mitchell was a 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of federal laws regulating state and local election procedures, including provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970.
-
C.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
-
D.
Blakely v. Washington
Blakely v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Apprendi rule to state sentencing guidelines, holding that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
E.
Arizona v. Evans
Arizona v. Evans is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained through an arrest based on erroneous computer records.
- 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_69ca84e0dd1881909800765d1e21f735 |
completed | March 30, 2026, 2:12 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69cdb3297bd88190bf8c53a4ba00e0ae |
completed | April 2, 2026, 12:07 a.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69d1cc8ca2808190a1da0641162f12d1 |
completed | April 5, 2026, 2:44 a.m. |
Created at: March 30, 2026, 8:32 p.m.