Triple
T4119661
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Italo-Celtic group |
E90380
|
entity |
| Predicate | instanceOf |
P0
|
FINISHED |
| Object | hypothesized language group |
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: hypothesized language group Context triple: [Italo-Celtic group, instanceOf, hypothesized language group]
-
A.
Altaic language group (disputed)
The Altaic language group (disputed) is a proposed but widely contested macro-family that would link Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, and sometimes Koreanic and Japonic languages under a common ancestral origin.
-
B.
Altaic language group (disputed)
The Altaic language group (disputed) is a proposed but widely contested macro-family that would link Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, and sometimes Koreanic and Japonic languages based on shared structural and lexical features often argued to result from areal contact rather than common ancestry.
-
C.
Oto-Manguean language
An Oto-Manguean language is a member of a large, diverse family of indigenous Mesoamerican languages, primarily spoken in Mexico, characterized by complex tonal systems and significant grammatical and phonological variation.
-
D.
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.
-
E.
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.
- F. None of above. chosen
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_69aed95c080881908125e30c5dcdc6f8 |
completed | March 9, 2026, 2:29 p.m. |
Created at: March 9, 2026, 3:41 p.m.