Triple
T5951103
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 |
E132398
|
entity |
| Predicate | respondsTo |
P2278
|
FINISHED |
| Object |
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowly interpreted the definition of "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting Congress to later broaden that definition through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
|
E560320
|
NE FINISHED |
How this triple was built (4 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: Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams | Statement: [Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, respondsTo, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams Context triple: [Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, respondsTo, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams]
-
A.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.
-
B.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court administrative law case that clarified the "arbitrary and capricious" standard for judicial review of agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
-
C.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
D.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
-
E.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NEDg
Description generation
gpt-5.1
Instruction
Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. # Instructions Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential. # Response Format Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"
Input
Entity: Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams Triple: [Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, respondsTo, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams]
Generated description
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowly interpreted the definition of "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting Congress to later broaden that definition through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams Target entity description: Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowly interpreted the definition of "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting Congress to later broaden that definition through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
-
A.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. is a landmark 1916 New York Court of Appeals case that expanded manufacturers’ liability in negligence to consumers, even without privity of contract.
-
B.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court administrative law case that clarified the "arbitrary and capricious" standard for judicial review of agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
-
C.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited is a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the limits of First Amendment petitioning rights when parties allegedly use governmental and judicial processes as part of an anticompetitive scheme in violation of antitrust laws.
-
D.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
-
E.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
- F. None of above. chosen
Provenance (5 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_69c0086b05cc8190a8f36a96927a525c |
completed | March 22, 2026, 3:19 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69c03981d88c8190838998494ad50a19 |
completed | March 22, 2026, 6:48 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69c0e3cb29f8819095d44ae3ad193fb2 |
completed | March 23, 2026, 6:55 a.m. |
| NEDg | Description generation | batch_69c0fab383f88190b18c55bf3704f3a4 |
completed | March 23, 2026, 8:32 a.m. |
| NED2 | Entity disambiguation (via description) | batch_69c0fdefa0d8819087adf1d41d9d9fe2 |
completed | March 23, 2026, 8:46 a.m. |
Created at: March 22, 2026, 4:02 p.m.