Triple

T22061397
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Herring v. United States E545159 entity
Predicate relatedCase P3137 FINISHED
Object Hudson v. Michigan 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: Hudson v. Michigan | Statement: [Herring v. United States, relatedCase, Hudson v. Michigan]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hudson v. Michigan
Context triple: [Herring v. United States, relatedCase, Hudson v. Michigan]
  • A. Michigan v. Doran
    Michigan v. Doran is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the limited role of asylum states in reviewing extradition requests from other states under the Extradition Clause and federal statute.
  • B. Michigan v. Tucker
    Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
  • C. Hudson v. Palmer
    Hudson v. Palmer is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells under the Fourth Amendment.
  • D. Hudson v. McMillian
    Hudson v. McMillian is a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner can violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment even when the inmate does not suffer serious injury.
  • E. Michigan v. Bryant
    Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
  • 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: Hudson v. Michigan
Target entity description: Hudson v. Michigan is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when police violate the "knock-and-announce" requirement before executing a search warrant.
  • A. Michigan v. Doran
    Michigan v. Doran is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the limited role of asylum states in reviewing extradition requests from other states under the Extradition Clause and federal statute.
  • B. Michigan v. Tucker
    Michigan v. Tucker is a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the exclusionary rule’s application to statements obtained without full Miranda warnings, holding that derivative evidence from such statements could still be admissible.
  • C. Hudson v. Palmer
    Hudson v. Palmer is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells under the Fourth Amendment.
  • D. Hudson v. McMillian
    Hudson v. McMillian is a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner can violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment even when the inmate does not suffer serious injury.
  • E. Michigan v. Bryant
    Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
  • 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_69e11e3377c48190890c17407b9527d6 completed April 16, 2026, 5:36 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69f1285d5e508190b3124a70fe55b32e completed April 28, 2026, 9:36 p.m.
Created at: April 16, 2026, 8:27 p.m.