Actually, it depends in what part of the country you are viewing this case from!
For example, I think the proper term in KY should be "probable cause hearing" because here, the lower court (District Court) Judge ruled that there was probable cause to bind the case to the Grand Jury, and not to Trial.
In the West, where Grand Jury Indictments are NOT the norm, and criminal charges are brought by Information and Complaint, Members here live for the "Preliminary Hearing" (PH) were we typically learn for the first time the details in the sealed probable cause affidavit supporting the Criminal Complaint.
What is often times a multi-day dispositional hearing, witnesses are called to present the states evidence against the defendant. Unlike a trial, rules are more relaxed during a preliminary hearing, and hearsay evidence is also allowed. The defense is also learning the states case against the defendant, usually in sufficient detail to know whether or not they want to change their plea or even go to trial. At the conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing, the Judge rules on whether or not the Prosecution proved that there is probable cause that the defendant committed the felony crimes as charged, and rules if the case if bound over for Trial. If the Judge does not agree probable cause proven, the charges against the defendant are dismissed.
To be clear, generally, a Preliminary Hearing replaces the Grand Jury. Unlike Kentucky, a defendant is not entitled to both a Preliminary Hearing AND a grand jury, and why I think it was confusing for many of us following this case.
IMO, listening to Stines hearing deemed as a "Preliminary Hearing" where the State's only witness, lead investigator Clayton Stamper, was beyond evasive in his answers to the defense, and and the defense called no witnesses to impeach Stamper, I don't think it should be called anything other than a probable cause hearing where the case was bound over to the grand jury for indictment. JMO