Triple

T19912122
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Vinson Court E478572 entity
Predicate notableDecision P22 FINISHED
Object Adamson v. California 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: Adamson v. California | Statement: [Vinson Court, notableDecision, Adamson v. California]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Adamson v. California
Context triple: [Vinson Court, notableDecision, Adamson v. California]
  • A. Adamson v. California chosen
    Adamson v. California is a 1947 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refused to apply the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, later undermined by incorporation-era rulings.
  • B. Griffin v. California
    Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
  • C. Bridges v. California
    Bridges v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded First Amendment protections by limiting the power of courts to punish out-of-court publications as contempt.
  • D. Gilbert v. California
    Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
  • E. Hurtado v. California
    Hurtado v. California is an 1884 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not require states to use grand jury indictments in criminal prosecutions.
  • F. None of above.
  • G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Provenance (2 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_69d8e520682081909892916424699bd5 completed April 10, 2026, 11:55 a.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69e659908ba88190ae0ee0fbfe4ddf64 completed April 20, 2026, 4:51 p.m.
Created at: April 10, 2026, 1:53 p.m.