Triple
T31784011
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action |
E811279
|
entity |
| Predicate | concursSeparatelyFrom |
P4521
|
FINISHED |
| Object | plurality opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy |
—
|
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: plurality opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy | Statement: [Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, concursSeparatelyFrom, plurality opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: concursSeparatelyFrom Context triple: [Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, concursSeparatelyFrom, plurality opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy]
-
A.
arguedSeparatelyFrom
Indicates that two or more arguments or positions were presented and considered independently rather than jointly or as part of the same case or discussion.
-
B.
concurringJustice
chosen
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.
-
C.
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.
-
D.
separateOpinionType
Indicates that one party holds a distinct or differing type of opinion from another party or from a main/standard opinion.
-
E.
concurringJustices
Indicates that the specified justices agreed with the court’s judgment or reasoning in the same case, typically by joining or authoring a concurring 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_69f348e544a48190ab6e700b05f6438c |
completed | April 30, 2026, 12:19 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69f6afebd7ec8190ab696f363d84abf0 |
completed | May 3, 2026, 2:16 a.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69f6aca3dedc81908b519d53d2909868 |
completed | May 3, 2026, 2:02 a.m. |
Created at: April 30, 2026, 11:37 p.m.