Triple
T33751623
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Omotic–Datooga languages |
E864856
|
entity |
| Predicate | instanceOf |
P0
|
FINISHED |
| Object | proposed language grouping |
C14762
|
CONCEPT FINISHED |
How this triple was built (1 step)
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.
CD
Concept disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target class: proposed language grouping Context triple: [Omotic–Datooga languages, instanceOf, proposed language grouping]
-
A.
areal language grouping
An areal language grouping is a set of languages that share structural features due to geographic proximity and contact rather than common genetic origin.
-
B.
hypothesized language group
chosen
A hypothesized language group is a proposed set of languages believed to share a common ancestor based on comparative evidence, but whose genetic relationship has not yet been conclusively demonstrated or widely accepted.
-
C.
group of language varieties
A group of language varieties is a conceptual class encompassing related dialects, sociolects, or registers that share a common linguistic base but differ in systematic ways across regions, communities, or contexts.
-
D.
Berber language grouping
A Berber language grouping is a conceptual class that encompasses the related Afroasiatic languages spoken by Berber (Amazigh) peoples across North Africa, classified together based on shared historical, structural, and lexical features.
-
E.
Philippine language grouping
The Philippine language grouping is a proposed subgroup of the Austronesian language family comprising the indigenous languages of the Philippines and some neighboring regions, characterized by shared phonological, grammatical, and lexical innovations.
- F. None of above.
Provenance (1 batch)
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_69f3498c35f881909df279ae4270f831 |
completed | April 30, 2026, 12:22 p.m. |
Created at: May 1, 2026, 1:45 a.m.