Triple

T2393472
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Guarantee Clause E47594 entity
Predicate notableCase P4 FINISHED
Object Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon E261353 NE FINISHED

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: Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon | Statement: [Guarantee Clause, notableCase, Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07 
Target entity: Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon
Context triple: [Guarantee Clause, notableCase, Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon]
  • A. Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon chosen
    Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon is a 1912 U.S. Supreme Court case that held challenges to state initiatives under the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause present nonjusticiable political questions beyond the Court’s authority to decide.
  • B. De Jonge v. Oregon
    De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
  • C. United States v. AT&T
    United States v. AT&T was a landmark antitrust lawsuit in which the U.S. government forced the breakup of the Bell System telecommunications monopoly in the early 1980s.
  • D. Oregon v. Elstad
    Oregon v. Elstad is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a suspect’s later, properly Mirandized confession can be admissible even if an earlier unwarned statement was obtained in violation of Miranda.
  • E. Ex parte Young
    Ex parte Young is a landmark 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created a legal fiction allowing suits in federal court against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, despite state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
  • F. None of above.
  • G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Provenance (3 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_69a88a1c450c81909f61abb8b6863885 completed March 4, 2026, 7:38 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69abc876d48881909e4d6f5ebe430012 completed March 7, 2026, 6:40 a.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69aeb3da0978819094584cb23194fb3a completed March 9, 2026, 11:49 a.m.
Created at: March 4, 2026, 7:57 p.m.