Triple

T22147145
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject D. G. Palekar E547314 entity
Predicate participatedIn P149 FINISHED
Object Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala — 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: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | Statement: [D. G. Palekar, participatedIn, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Context triple: [D. G. Palekar, participatedIn, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]
  • A. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala chosen
    Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
  • B. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
    I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab is a landmark 1967 Indian Supreme Court case that held Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under the Constitution, sharply limiting its amending power until this view was later modified.
  • C. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
    S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark 1994 Supreme Court of India judgment that curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule and strengthened federalism by applying the basic structure doctrine to center-state relations.
  • D. M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
    M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra is a 1954 Supreme Court of India judgment that had denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution, a position later overruled by the landmark Puttaswamy decision.
  • E. Waman Rao v. Union of India
    Waman Rao v. Union of India is a landmark 1981 Supreme Court of India judgment that reaffirmed and clarified the basic structure doctrine by upholding its applicability to constitutional amendments made after the Kesavananda Bharati decision.
  • 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_69e11e3a95d88190a3bd80d9471976c3 completed April 16, 2026, 5:36 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69f129f156988190bc9a24a37418e849 completed April 28, 2026, 9:43 p.m.
Created at: April 16, 2026, 8:33 p.m.