Triple
T31735851
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action |
E809990
|
entity |
| Predicate | concursIn |
P4521
|
FINISHED |
| Object | upholding Michigan’s Proposal 2 |
—
|
LITERAL 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: upholding Michigan’s Proposal 2 | Statement: [Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, concursIn, upholding Michigan’s Proposal 2]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: concursIn Context triple: [Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, concursIn, upholding Michigan’s Proposal 2]
-
A.
concurringJustice
chosen
Indicates that a justice agrees with the court’s judgment or outcome but writes or joins a separate concurring opinion expressing different or additional reasoning.
-
B.
concurringJustices
Indicates that the specified justices agreed with the court’s judgment or reasoning in the same case, typically by joining or authoring a concurring opinion.
-
C.
affirms
Indicates that one entity explicitly confirms, supports, or asserts the truth or validity of another entity, statement, or proposition.
-
D.
hasConcurringJustice
Indicates that a judicial decision is associated with a justice who wrote or joined a concurring opinion.
-
E.
concludes
Indicates that one entity brings something (such as an event, process, or discussion) to an end or reaches a final decision or judgment about it.
- F. None of above.
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_69f348e0e4908190a884582eca646fb7 |
completed | April 30, 2026, 12:19 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f6ab23f4608190ace81412a377eff8 |
completed | May 3, 2026, 1:55 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69f6aa20a1588190a53533fc9764efb2 |
completed | May 3, 2026, 1:51 a.m. |
Created at: April 30, 2026, 11:23 p.m.