Triple

T9607475
Position Surface form Disambiguated ID Type / Status
Subject Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) E232007 entity
Predicate argues P33 FINISHED
Object the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being disadvantaged in the political process E15484 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: the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being disadvantaged in the political process | Statement: [Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action), argues, the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being disadvantaged in the political process]
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being disadvantaged in the political process
Context triple: [Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action), argues, the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being disadvantaged in the political process]
  • A. Equal Protection Clause chosen
    The Equal Protection Clause is a key constitutional provision that prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, forming the basis for many landmark civil rights decisions in the United States.
  • B. Section 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
    Section 9 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a provision that established federal oversight mechanisms for certain jurisdictions’ voting changes, forming part of the Act’s broader framework to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
  • C. Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
    Section 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a provision that was challenged but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to enforce voting rights protections.
  • D. Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
    Section 6 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a key enforcement provision that authorizes the appointment of federal examiners to oversee voter registration and protect voting rights in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.
  • E. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
    Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was the provision that established the coverage formula determining which jurisdictions were subject to federal preclearance requirements for changes to their voting laws.
  • 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_69ca8485a90c819094fe40b42fde9d70 completed March 30, 2026, 2:11 p.m.
NER Named-entity recognition batch_69cd9a62372881908bf21be91e7285fb completed April 1, 2026, 10:21 p.m.
NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) batch_69d17942504481908e7147a0f56bdf96 completed April 4, 2026, 8:49 p.m.
Created at: March 30, 2026, 8:08 p.m.