Triple
T7476593
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Timbs v. Indiana |
E176646
|
entity |
| Predicate | fullName |
P16
|
FINISHED |
| Object | Tyson Timbs v. Indiana |
E176646
|
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: Tyson Timbs v. Indiana | Statement: [Timbs v. Indiana, fullName, Tyson Timbs v. Indiana]
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Tyson Timbs v. Indiana Context triple: [Timbs v. Indiana, fullName, Tyson Timbs v. Indiana]
-
A.
Timbs v. Indiana
chosen
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Hess v. Indiana
Hess v. Indiana is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the limits of the First Amendment's "incitement" exception by holding that an antiwar protester's vulgar statement advocating future lawless action was protected speech.
-
C.
Ray v. Blair
Ray v. Blair is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state's authority to require presidential electors to pledge support for their party's nominees as a condition of appointment.
-
D.
Scott v. Illinois
Scott v. Illinois is a 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel applies only when a defendant is actually sentenced to imprisonment, thereby limiting the broader protections suggested in Argersinger v. Hamlin.
-
E.
Keech v Sandford
Keech v Sandford is an 18th-century English trust law case establishing the strict fiduciary duty of loyalty, holding that trustees cannot personally profit from opportunities arising from their position.
- 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_69c69f236ce08190a04d7679f03b29b2 |
completed | March 27, 2026, 3:15 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69c6f4ee23d081908e05658a651661fc |
completed | March 27, 2026, 9:21 p.m. |
| NED1 | Entity disambiguation (via context triple) | batch_69c83489a8208190b0380edcd18a1246 |
completed | March 28, 2026, 8:05 p.m. |
Created at: March 27, 2026, 3:41 p.m.