Triple

T7476630
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Timbs v. Indiana E176646 entity
Predicate GorsuchConcurrenceBasis P33112 FINISHED
Object Agreement with incorporation of Excessive Fines Clause 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: Agreement with incorporation of Excessive Fines Clause | Statement: [Timbs v. Indiana, GorsuchConcurrenceBasis, Agreement with incorporation of Excessive Fines Clause]
PD Predicate disambiguation gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: GorsuchConcurrenceBasis
Context triple: [Timbs v. Indiana, GorsuchConcurrenceBasis, Agreement with incorporation of Excessive Fines Clause]
  • A. concurringJustice
    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. hasConcurringJustice
    Indicates that a judicial decision is associated with a justice who wrote or joined a concurring opinion.
  • C. constitutionalBasisOfHolding chosen
    Indicates that one legal holding is grounded in, justified by, or derived from a specific constitutional provision or principle.
  • D. concurrenceInPartAndDissentInPartBy
    Indicates that one party agrees with part of a decision or opinion and disagrees with another part, in relation to another party’s position.
  • E. hasDissentingJustice
    Indicates that within a judicial decision or ruling, there exists at least one justice who formally disagrees with the majority opinion.
  • 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_69c69f236ce08190a04d7679f03b29b2 completed March 27, 2026, 3:15 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69c6f4ee23d081908e05658a651661fc completed March 27, 2026, 9:21 p.m.
PD Predicate disambiguation batch_69c6f03d967081908a8e696ff9693b90 completed March 27, 2026, 9:01 p.m.
Created at: March 27, 2026, 3:41 p.m.