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.