Triple
T22674856
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act |
E560318
|
entity |
| Predicate | interpretedBy |
P1044
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) |
—
|
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: Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) | Statement: [Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, interpretedBy, Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) Context triple: [Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, interpretedBy, Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)]
-
A.
Olmstead v. United States
Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
-
B.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
C.
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal court authority over state institutions by holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from ordering state officials to comply with state law.
-
D.
Regan v. Wald
Regan v. Wald is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal restrictions on travel to Cuba, affirming broad executive authority over foreign affairs and economic sanctions.
-
E.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
- 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: Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) Target entity description: Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held unjustified segregation of people with disabilities in institutions violates the Americans with Disabilities Act’s integration mandate.
-
A.
Olmstead v. United States
Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
-
B.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
C.
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal court authority over state institutions by holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from ordering state officials to comply with state law.
-
D.
Regan v. Wald
Regan v. Wald is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal restrictions on travel to Cuba, affirming broad executive authority over foreign affairs and economic sanctions.
-
E.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
- 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_69e2454bfd00819099115715a22cb057 |
completed | April 17, 2026, 2:35 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f17823bd1881908958b0a8ba59e199 |
completed | April 29, 2026, 3:16 a.m. |
Created at: April 17, 2026, 3:10 p.m.