Triple
T20023657
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Bivens doctrine |
E494921
|
entity |
| Predicate | subjectOf |
P38
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) |
—
|
NE NERFINISHED |
How this triple was built (3 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: Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) | Statement: [Bivens doctrine, subjectOf, Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017)]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) Context triple: [Bivens doctrine, subjectOf, Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017)]
-
A.
Zubik v. Burwell
Zubik v. Burwell is a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning religious nonprofits’ objections to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate and the accommodation process for opting out.
-
B.
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal employment discrimination law protects gay and lesbian employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation.
-
C.
Patchak v. Zinke
Patchak v. Zinke is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed Congress’s power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over pending lawsuits without violating the Constitution’s separation of powers.
-
D.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that Congress may, under its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers, authorize private lawsuits for money damages against state governments despite Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
-
E.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) Target entity description: Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that sharply limited the availability of implied damages actions against federal officials under the Bivens doctrine, especially in national security and immigration detention contexts.
-
A.
Zubik v. Burwell
Zubik v. Burwell is a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning religious nonprofits’ objections to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate and the accommodation process for opting out.
-
B.
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal employment discrimination law protects gay and lesbian employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation.
-
C.
Patchak v. Zinke
Patchak v. Zinke is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed Congress’s power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over pending lawsuits without violating the Constitution’s separation of powers.
-
D.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that Congress may, under its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers, authorize private lawsuits for money damages against state governments despite Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
-
E.
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that extended the right to counsel to defendants in misdemeanor cases that may result in imprisonment.
- F. None of above. chosen
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_69da626bfd288190aa5d65098b6433ae |
completed | April 11, 2026, 3:02 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69e6628a1ecc8190bf6ee0bedb61e0b8 |
completed | April 20, 2026, 5:29 p.m. |
Created at: April 11, 2026, 3:35 p.m.