Triple

T9830658
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Michigan v. Tucker E238772 entity
Predicate citedBy P771 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: [Michigan v. Tucker, citedBy, Oregon v. Elstad]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Oregon v. Elstad
Context triple: [Michigan v. Tucker, citedBy, 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_69d1d5bc17c08190ad094def4fbf9921 completed April 5, 2026, 3:23 a.m.
Created at: March 30, 2026, 8:32 p.m.