Triple
T588089
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Smith v. Allwright |
E17203
|
entity |
| Predicate | precedentStatusOfGrovey v. Townsend |
P15949
|
FINISHED |
| Object | overruled |
—
|
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: overruled | Statement: [Smith v. Allwright, precedentStatusOfGrovey v. Townsend, overruled]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: precedentStatusOfGrovey v. Townsend Context triple: [Smith v. Allwright, precedentStatusOfGrovey v. Townsend, overruled]
-
A.
precedentChallenged
Indicates that an existing legal precedent is being questioned, disputed, or formally contested.
-
B.
precedentSystem
Indicates that one legal system or framework serves as a source of precedent or authoritative guidance for another system.
-
C.
precedentFor
Indicates that one situation, decision, or case serves as an authoritative example or basis for deciding or interpreting another.
-
D.
precedentInterpreted
Indicates that one legal precedent is interpreted or understood in a particular way, often as clarified or applied in subsequent decisions or analyses.
-
E.
upheldBy
Indicates that one entity is supported, maintained, or validated by another, often through approval, enforcement, or confirmation of its validity.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (4 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_69a49379d09c8190ac7e00b24e2810b1 |
completed | March 1, 2026, 7:28 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69a49b9d1e68819096a9b5e7b2e83d6e |
completed | March 1, 2026, 8:03 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69a494ca68448190a516b9c3525d8916 |
completed | March 1, 2026, 7:34 p.m. |
| PDg | Predicate description generation | batch_69a4985ada988190aaea628a9b55bca4 |
completed | March 1, 2026, 7:49 p.m. |
Created at: March 1, 2026, 7:33 p.m.