Triple
T14971236
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Northern Ume Sami |
E373323
|
entity |
| Predicate | instanceOf |
P0
|
FINISHED |
| Object | regional variety of the Ume Sami language |
C13934
|
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: regional variety of the Ume Sami language Context triple: [Northern Ume Sami, instanceOf, regional variety of the Ume Sami language]
-
A.
Sami language
chosen
Sami language is a group of closely related Uralic languages spoken by the Sami people across northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia’s Kola Peninsula.
-
B.
Yana language variety
Yana language variety refers to any of the related but distinct forms of the Yana language traditionally spoken by the Yana people of northern California, encompassing dialectal differences in phonology, vocabulary, and grammar.
-
C.
Sabaic language variety
A Sabaic language variety is a specific form or dialect of the ancient South Arabian Sabaic language, distinguished by its unique linguistic features, geographic distribution, and historical context within the Sabaean cultural sphere.
-
D.
regional variety of the Piedmontese language
A regional variety of the Piedmontese language is a geographically localized form of Piedmontese characterized by distinct phonological, lexical, and sometimes syntactic features shared by speakers in a specific area.
-
E.
Yup'ik language variety
A Yup'ik language variety is a specific regional or social form of the Yup'ik language distinguished by its unique phonological, lexical, and grammatical features within the broader Yup'ik linguistic continuum.
- 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_69d85ccbbcd48190acb56e7cf104d8ad |
completed | April 10, 2026, 2:13 a.m. |
Created at: April 10, 2026, 2:49 a.m.