[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: evidence
Target surface form: evidence
Context:
On Thursday, the widely followed trial of Steven J. Hayes, who was convicted of killing three members of a Cheshire, Conn., family, is set to come to an official end with the judge's imposition of the death sentence voted for by the jury. But lawyers for Mr. Hayes have already made court filings that sketch out appeals arguments that are likely to occupy the courts for years. One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no <t>evidence</t> the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=evidence%1:09:00:: | definition=your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief | synonyms=grounds | examples=the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling
2. sense_key=evidence%1:10:01:: | definition=an indication that makes something evident | examples=his trembling was evidence of his fear
3. sense_key=evidence%1:10:00:: | definition=(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the target word and context:**
    *   Target lemma: evidence
    *   Target surface form: evidence
    *   Context: The text discusses the trial of Steven J. Hayes. Lawyers are appealing the death sentence, arguing that media coverage (including Twitter) created a circus atmosphere that swayed the jury. Judge Jon C. Blue rejected these claims, stating the media were "carefully controlled" and that there was "no evidence the jury was driven by passion."

2.  **Analyze the candidate senses:**
    *   **Sense 1:** definition="your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief", synonyms=grounds, examples="the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling". This refers to a general basis for belief (epistemic grounds).
    *   **Sense 2:** definition="an indication that makes something evident", examples="his trembling was evidence of his fear". This refers to a sign or indication.
    *   **Sense 3:** definition="(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved". This refers specifically to legal evidence presented in court.

3.  **Evaluate the fit of each sense in context:**
    *   The sentence is: "...there was no **evidence** the jury was driven by passion."
    *   The context is a legal setting (a trial judge making a ruling).
    *   However, let's look at the specific usage here. Is the judge saying there were no legal exhibits/testimonies submitted (Sense 3)? Or is he saying there was no basis/grounds to believe the jury was driven by passion (Sense 1)?
    *   Let's re-read Sense 3. It defines "evidence" as the *means* by which facts are established (e.g., DNA, testimony, documents). "There was no evidence the jury was driven by passion" usually means "There is no proof/basis for the claim that the jury was driven by passion."
    *   Let's look at Sense 1. "Basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief." Synonym: "grounds".
    *   Comparison: The phrase "no evidence that X happened" or "no evidence of X" generally functions as "no grounds to believe X" or "no proof of X". While the setting is a courtroom (law), the word "evidence" here isn't necessarily referring to the strict legal collection of admissible materials (Sense 3). The judge is saying there is no proof/indication/basis to support the claim that the jury was driven by passion.
    *   However, WordNet Sense 3 is specifically labeled "(law)". In a legal context, does "evidence" always map to Sense 3?
        *   If a judge says "The evidence is insufficient," they usually mean the legal evidence (Sense 3).
        *   If a judge says "There is no evidence of bias," they could mean "no factual basis" (Sense 1) or "no legal proof submitted" (Sense 3).
    *   Let's look closer at the distinction between Sense 1 and Sense 3 in this specific sentence structure.
    *   Sentence: "there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion."
    *   Does this mean "no legal testimony/documents were presented to show the jury was driven by passion"? Or does it mean "there are no grounds to believe the jury was driven by passion"?
    *   Sense 1 synonyms include "grounds". "There was no grounds to believe..." fits perfectly.
    *   Sense 3 refers to the *means* (testimony, exhibits, etc.). While the defense might not have submitted specific legal proof (Sense 3) of passion, the judge's statement acts as a factual finding. Usually, general statements about "proof" or "signs" that X is true in a general sense map to Sense 1 or 2 in WordNet, even in a legal context, unless referring specifically to the formal category of "Evidence" (with a capital E).
    *   Let's check Sense 1 examples: "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling." This is scientific/epistemic evidence.
    *   Let's check Sense 3 definition: "(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact... is established or disproved".
    *   The phrase "no evidence the jury was driven by passion" is a claim about the state of reality (there is no proof), rather than a reference to the strict procedural instruments (means) defined in Sense 3.
    *   However, context is heavily legal. WordNet distinctions can be tricky here. Often, if a word is used in a legal context to mean "proof" or "basis for belief" regarding a fact *under investigation*, Sense 3 is a strong contender.
    *   But consider the phrase "evidence of his fear" (Sense 2) vs "evidence for belief" (Sense 1).
    *   The claim being discussed is: "Did the media atmosphere sway the jury?"
    *   Judge says: "There is no evidence [proof/basis] the jury was driven by passion."
    *   This usage aligns strongly with Sense 1 ("basis for belief"). It is functionally equivalent to "There is no proof" or "There are no grounds."
    *   Let's look at Sense 3 again. Is the jury being driven by passion an "alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial"? Yes, it became a matter of fact during the appeal/hearing.
    *   So, is the judge saying "You haven't provided the legal means (testimony/proof) to establish this fact"? Yes.
    *   Let's test Sense 1 vs Sense 3 substitution.
        *   Sense 1: "There was no basis for belief the jury was driven by passion." (Makes sense).
        *   Sense 3: "There were no legal means presented to establish that the jury was driven by passion." (Makes sense).
    *   Which is the primary reading? Usually, when a judge says "There is no evidence of X," they are dismissing a claim based on a lack of proof. Sense 3 is the technical legal term for the *materials* presented. Sense 1 is the general concept of grounds for belief.
    *   WordNet often separates domain-specific senses. Sense 3 is the domain-specific sense.
    *   However, consider the semantic scope. Sense 3 defines "evidence" as "all the means...". Is the *lack* of evidence referring to the lack of means? "There was no means." - No, it refers to the lack of factual basis established by those means.
    *   Let's look at a similar analysis. In legal texts, "evidence" is often Sense 3. But "no evidence that..." clauses often map to Sense 1 (grounds).
    *   Example: "There is no evidence that the defendant knew the victim." In a legal context, is this Sense 1 or 3?
        *   Sense 3: The prosecution failed to produce legal proof (testimony, documents).
        *   Sense 1: There is no reason to believe...
    *   Usually, Sense 1 is broader. Sense 3 is a sub-type (the legal instantiation).
    *   If the context implies specific legal procedural evidence (e.g., "The evidence was thrown out," "The DNA evidence was contaminated"), it is definitely Sense 3.
    *   If the context is "There is no evidence X is true" (even if spoken by a judge), it is often Sense 1.
    *   Let's re-read the sentence: "...saying that the news media were 'carefully controlled' and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion."
    *   This sounds like a general assertion of fact: "There is no proof." It is not referring to a specific piece of evidence or a category of legal admissibility in this specific phrase. It is a finding of fact.
    *   Sense 1 definition: "your basis for belief or disbelief". This fits the judge's finding: "I have no basis to believe the jury was driven by passion."
    *   Sense 3 definition: "(law) all the means...". This is a definition of the *concept* of legal evidence.
    *   Let's try to find the specific boundary in WordNet annotation guidelines or common usage.
        *   Sense 1: General "proof" or "grounds".
        *   Sense 3: Technical "legal evidence".
    *   Usage "no evidence the jury was driven by passion": This is often synonymous with "no indication" or "no proof".
    *   Sense 2 is "an indication that makes something evident". "There was no indication the jury was driven by passion." This also fits very well.
    *   Let's compare Sense 1 and Sense 2.
        *   Sense 1: Basis for belief. Focus on the believer/judge's mental state or epistemic justification.
        *   Sense 2: Indication. Focus on the external sign.
        *   Here, the judge is saying there was nothing observable to indicate passion.
    *   Let's reconsider Sense 1 vs Sense 2. Sense 1 examples: "evidence that smoking causes lung cancer". Sense 2 examples: "his trembling was evidence of his fear".
    *   The sentence says "evidence the jury was driven by passion".
    *   Is the "passion" an "evident" thing indicated by signs (Sense 2)? Or a proposition believed based on grounds (Sense 1)?
    *   "Jury was driven by passion" is a proposition. "Evidence that P" usually points to Sense 1 (grounds).
    *   "Evidence of X" (where X is a state/quality) can be Sense 2. "Evidence of fear", "Evidence of passion". The text says "evidence the jury was driven by passion" (complement clause). This structure "evidence that..." is very common for Sense 1. "Evidence of..." is common for Sense 2.
    *   The text actually uses "evidence the jury was driven by passion" (implied "that").
    *   Sense 1 seems better than Sense 2 based on the clausal complement "that the jury...".
    *   Now, Sense 1 vs Sense 3.
    *   Does the judge mean "No legal proofs were submitted"? Or "There is no factual basis"?
    *   Often, when a judge says "There is no evidence of X," they are making a legal determination (Sense 3 context), but the meaning is Sense 1 (lack of grounds). However, WordNet senses are often applied based on domain.
    *   If I look at Sense 3, it explicitly defines evidence as the *means*.
    *   Is "no evidence" in this sentence referring to the *means*? "There were no means (testimony, etc.) to establish..."?
    *   If the defense had presented a poll showing public passion, that would be "evidence" (Sense 3). The judge is saying such means/proofs are lacking.
    *   Because this is a formal ruling by a judge in a trial regarding a matter of fact (jury passion), it falls within the domain of (law).
    *   However, Sense 3 is defined as "all the means...". It is a collective noun or a category. "The evidence" = the body of proof.
    *   Sense 1 is "basis for belief".
    *   Let's check the granularity. Sense 3 is often used for the "body of facts" presented.
    *   Is "no evidence" a reference to the legal body of proofs? Yes.
    *   Let's look at the context again. "claim could force appeals judges to grapple..." "court filings..." "ruling..."
    *   The judge rejected the claim because there was no legal proof.
    *   Let's compare with Sense 1 again. If a scientist says "There is no evidence for aliens," it's Sense 1. If a judge says "There is no evidence the jury was swayed," is it Sense 3?
    *   Many WSD systems and annotators tag legal contexts with the legal sense (Sense 3) if it pertains to proof in a trial. Here, the existence of "passion swaying the jury" is the fact being investigated. The judge says it is not established. Thus, there is no legal evidence (Sense 3).
    *   Wait, look at Sense 3 definition again. "all the means by which any alleged matter of fact ... is established".
    *   If the judge says "There was no evidence," he implies the means to establish the fact are missing.
    *   However, Sense 1 is defined as "basis for belief".
    *   Is it possible Sense 1 is the correct choice?
    *   Let's look at the synonyms. Sense 1: grounds.
    *   "There was no grounds the jury was driven by passion." (Grammatically "no grounds for believing...", but semantically close).
    *   Sense 3 has no synonyms listed in the prompt (though WordNet has 'proof' often).
    *   Let's look at the definition of Sense 1 vs Sense 2.
    *   Sense 2: "an indication that makes something evident".
    *   Sense 1: "basis for belief".
    *   The judge is addressing the defense's claim (argument). The defense argues X. The judge says "No evidence [to support X]."
    *   This is providing a basis for the judge's ruling.
    *   Let's consider the phrase "no evidence".
    *   "There is no evidence of life on Mars." (Sense 1).
    *   "The evidence was excluded." (Sense 3).
    *   "There was no evidence the jury was driven by passion."
    *   This feels like Sense 1 (General basis for belief), even though it's in a legal context. It's not talking about specific exhibits or witnesses (the "means"), but the general epistemic state of the court regarding the claim.
    *   However, WSD tasks often favor domain-specific senses. Is there a domain-specific sense here?
    *   Sense 3 is marked (law). The text is about a trial. The word refers to the establishment of a fact in a trial.
    *   Let's try to find a precedent for this specific disambiguation.
    *   In SemCor/WordNet annotations:
        *   "The evidence that smoking causes lung cancer..." (Sense 1).
        *   "The trembling was evidence of his fear" (Sense 2).
    *   What about "The jury heard all the evidence"? (Sense 3).
    *   What about "There was no evidence to support the verdict"? (Sense 1 or 3?).
    *   If it means "The legal record was empty," it's Sense 3.
    *   If it means "There was no reason to believe," it's Sense 1.
    *   The judge says "...there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion."
    *   This sounds like "There is no indication/grounds."
    *   Let's look at Sense 1's definition: "your basis for belief or disbelief".
    *   Let's look at Sense 3's definition: "means... established or disproved".
    *   Strictly speaking, "evidence" in "no evidence that..." refers to the *proof* itself, not the *means*. The means *are* the proof. But Sense 3 is defined as "the means".
    *   Sense 1 seems to capture the semantic role of "that which provides grounds".
    *   However, Sense 3 is the "legal evidence".
    *   Let's compare "proof". If the sentence was "There was no proof," it would be Sense 1 equivalent.
    *   If the sentence was "The defense failed to submit evidence," it would be Sense 3.
    *   "There was no evidence..." refers to the existence of such proof.
    *   In a strict legal sense, the "evidence" consists of the items admitted to the record. If the judge says "no evidence," he means "nothing in the record."
    *   This points to Sense 3 (the legal means/facts established).
    *   But the phrasing "no evidence [clause]" is extremely common for Sense 1.
    *   Let's look at the context again. "Judge... rejected the claims... saying... there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion."
    *   This is a judicial finding. It is a legal context.
    *   However, the semantic content is "There was no indication/signs/basis".
    *   Let's verify Sense 2. "an indication that makes something evident".
    *   Could it be Sense 2? "There was no indication the jury was driven by passion."
    *   Sense 2 example: "his trembling was evidence of his fear".
    *   Sense 1 example: "evidence that smoking causes lung cancer".
    *   The text has "evidence [that] the jury was driven by passion".
    *   This construction "evidence that [clause]" aligns with Sense 1's example.
    *   Sense 2 usually takes "evidence of [noun phrase]".
    *   Therefore, it's between Sense 1 and Sense 3.
    *   Context: Legal setting.
    *   Sense 3 is the legal definition.
    *   Sense 1 is the general definition.
    *   Does the legal context force Sense 3?
    *   If a doctor says "There is no evidence of infection," it's Sense 1 or 2.
    *   If a judge says "There is no evidence of bias," it is a legal determination.
    *   However, Sense 3 definition focuses on "means by which ... is established".
    *   Is "evidence" in this sentence used to mean "the means"?
    *   "There were no means the jury was driven by passion" -> No.
    *   "There was no basis for belief..." -> Yes.
    *   Sense 1 fits the semantic contribution to the sentence better ("basis for belief").
    *   Sense 3 fits the domain better.
    *   Let's consider the nuance of Sense 3. It includes "all the means". It implies a body of proof.
    *   If the judge says "There is no evidence," he is saying "There is no body of proof."
    *   Is that Sense 1 or Sense 3?
    *   Sense 1 definition: "your basis for belief".
    *   Sense 3 definition: "all the means by which... fact... is established".
    *   If I have a "basis for belief," I have "evidence" (Sense 1).
    *   If I have "means to establish a fact," I have "evidence" (Sense 3).
    *   In a trial, the "basis for belief" *must* be the "means established at trial" (legal evidence). The judge is asserting that no such legal evidence exists.
    *   Thus, the judge is referring to the legal concept of evidence.
    *   Usually, if a sense is domain-specific (like Law) and the context is that domain, and the word is used in its domain-specific capacity (referring to proof within a trial), the domain-specific sense (Sense 3) is preferred in WordNet mapping.
    *   The judge is acting in a legal capacity. He is rejecting a legal argument based on a lack of legal proof. He is not just giving a personal opinion (Sense 1); he is ruling on the legal record (Sense 3).
    *   Although the surface syntax ("no evidence that...") matches the general Sense 1 example, the context requires the specific legal sense. The defense made "court filings" sketching out appeals. The judge "tersely rejected the claims... saying ... no evidence." This refers to the procedural failure of the defense to substantiate their claim within the legal framework.
    *   Therefore, Sense 3 seems the most appropriate for a "fine-grained" linguist task respecting WordNet's domain labels. WordNet explicitly separates the legal sense.
    *   Wait, let me double check Sense 1 vs 3 for "no evidence".
    *   Common usage: "There is no evidence for ghosts." (Sense 1).
    *   Legal usage: "The State presented no evidence." (Sense 3).
    *   Legal usage: "There was no evidence the jury was swayed." -> This is borderline.
    *   Let's check the "synonyms" hint provided.
    *   Sense 1 synonym: grounds.
    *   Sense 3 synonyms: none listed in prompt, usually "proof" (though proof is also general).
    *   Does "grounds" fit? "There was no grounds the jury was driven by passion." - Clunky. "There were no grounds to believe..."
    *   Does "legal means" fit? "There were no legal means to establish..."
    *   Let's look at the gloss of Sense 1 again: "your basis for belief or disbelief".
    *   The judge is saying: "I have no basis to believe the jury was driven by passion."
    *   This maps perfectly to Sense 1.
    *   Why would it be Sense 3? Only if "evidence" *only* refers to formal exhibits.
    *   But "evidence" in "no evidence that..." is abstract. It refers to the *state of affairs* providing proof.
    *   Sense 3 definition "all the means..." is a concrete definition of the tools/items.
    *   "Evidence" in the sentence is abstract/countable? "no evidence". Uncountable/mass noun usage here.
    *   Sense 1 is "basis for belief". That is abstract.
    *   Sense 3 is "all the means". That is concrete (testimony, exhibits).
    *   When the judge says "no evidence," does he mean "no items"? Or "no basis"?
    *   He likely means "nothing in the record to indicate" (no items).
    *   If he means "no items," it points to Sense 3.
    *   Let's consider the "indexed sense" methodology. Often, domain-specific senses are chosen if available.
    *   However, Sense 1's example "evidence that smoking causes lung cancer" is extremely similar structurally to "evidence the jury was driven by passion".
    *   If we ignore the "Judge" and "Jury" words, and just look at "There was no evidence X caused Y", it is Sense 1.
    *   Does the surrounding legal context change the sense *of this specific instance*?
    *   The defense claims X. The judge says "No evidence for X."
    *   This is a judgment on the probative value available.
    *   Let's try to decide if this is Sense 1 or 3.
    *   Argument for Sense 1: Structure "evidence that..." matches Sense 1 example. Definition "basis for belief" fits the semantic logic of the judge's statement (the judge lacks the basis to rule for the defense).
    *   Argument for Sense 3: Context is strictly legal. The claim is a legal claim. The lack of evidence is a legal finding. Sense 3 is the defined legal sense.
    *   Often, WordNet sense 3 for 'evidence' is used for "The evidence was inadmissible" or "The prosecution's evidence".
    *   Is "no evidence" considered the legal category?
    *   Let's look at Sense 1 again. "your basis for belief".
    *   WordNet 3.0/3.1 structure for Evidence:
        *   1: basis for belief (grounds) - General.
        *   2: indication (sign) - General.
        *   3: law - means to establish fact.
    *   If the text was "The judge suppressed the evidence," it's 3.
    *   If the text was "The evidence points to the defendant," it's 3 (or 1?).
    *   If the text is "There was no evidence the jury was driven by passion," the judge is stating a fact about the absence of proof.
    *   Let's think about the synonym "grounds". "The judge said there were no grounds for the claim." This is Sense 1.
    *   If Sense 1 works perfectly with the synonym and the example sentence structure, and Sense 3 requires forcing the definition "means" into an abstract "basis" role, Sense 1 is stronger linguistically.
    *   The legal context makes the *topic* legal, but the *word sense* might still be the general "basis for belief". The judge's belief (ruling) is based on the lack of grounds (evidence).
    *   Contrast this with "The lawyers presented their evidence." Here, you can't substitute "grounds" easily ("presented their grounds" is different). You present items/means (Sense 3).
    *   In "There was no evidence," you *can* substitute "grounds" ("There were no grounds to believe...").
    *   Therefore, Sense 1 is the best fit.

    *   Double check Sense 2. "indication". "There was no indication..." -> "There was no evidence...". These are very close.
    *   But Sense 1 example "evidence that smoking causes lung cancer" is an argument/conclusion. "Jury was driven by passion" is an argument/conclusion.
    *   Sense 2 example "trembling was evidence of fear" is a physical sign of a state.
    *   The sentence discusses a conclusion (jury was driven by passion) based on the reporting. The judge says there is no basis for this conclusion.
    *   Sense 1 ("basis for belief") fits the logic of validating/refuting a claim/argument better than Sense 2 ("indication" of a state).
    *   So it's Sense 1 vs Sense 3.
    *   I am leaning towards Sense 1 because of the clausal complement "that the jury..." and the synonym "grounds".
    *   However, in a "fine-grained" task, distinguishing between general and domain senses is key.
    *   If the sentence implies "No *legal* evidence," it might be 3.
    *   "The news media were 'carefully controlled' and there was no evidence..."
    *   The judge is rebutting the defense's appeal points. The defense argued "circus atmosphere".
    *   The judge says Media was controlled + No evidence of jury passion.
    *   This implies the defense failed to prove their point.
    *   Is the judge saying "You brought no proof"? Or "There is no proof"?
    *   In a legal context, "no evidence" often functions as "insufficient evidence to go to the jury" or "no factual basis."
    *   If I check similar disambiguated corpora (like SemCor), "evidence" in legal texts is overwhelmingly Sense 3 (law).
    *   Example from SemCor: "The evidence against him was purely circumstantial." -> Sense 3.
    *   Example: "There was no evidence to show..." -> ?
    *   If the usage is "The evidence [in the case]," it's Sense 3.
    *   Here, "there was no evidence..." existential construction.
    *   Let's assume the domain dominates. The word is used by a judge, about a jury, in a ruling. It refers to the establishment of a fact in a trial.
    *   Definition Sense 3: "(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved".
    *   The matter of fact: "jury was driven by passion".
    *   Is it being investigated? Yes.
    *   Is there means to establish it? No.
    *   Thus, "no evidence" = "no means to establish".
    *   This fits Sense 3's definition surprisingly well if you parse "There was no [means by which the fact was established]".
    *   Sense 1 "basis for belief" is subjective/epistemic.
    *   Sense 3 "means... established" is procedural/objective.
    *   A judge's ruling is a procedural finding. He is saying "The record is empty of such proof." This is Sense 3.
    *   If he were a commentator saying "I think there is no evidence," it would be Sense 1.
    *   Because it is a judge acting in official capacity ("judge's imposition", "ruling", "rejected the claims"), Sense 3 is the precise choice.

    Final check:
    Target: "evidence"
    Context: Judge's ruling in a trial.
    Candidate 1: Basis for belief (General).
    Candidate 3: Legal means to establish fact (Law).

    Reasoning: The speaker is a judge ("Judge Jon C. Blue ... rejected the claims ... saying ... there was no evidence"). The context is a formal legal ruling regarding an appeal argument. The "evidence" referred to is the legal proof required to substantiate the defense's claim that the jury was swayed. The lack of evidence is a legal determination that no sufficient legal proof (means) was presented to establish the alleged fact. While the construction parallels Sense 1, the domain and the nature of the act (a judicial ruling on the establishment of fact) point to the specific legal sense (Sense 3). WordNet explicitly labels Sense 3 as "(law)".

    Let me double check Sense 1 again. "Your basis for belief".
    If a judge uses it, is it his personal basis for belief? No, it's the court's basis.
    Sense 3: "means by which ... is established".
    The judge says there are no such means. This fits the definition strictly.

    Let's look at the Sense 1 synonym "grounds".
    In legal terminology, "grounds" is also used ("grounds for appeal"). "There were no grounds..." fits.
    But "evidence" is the specific term here.
    In WordNet, Sense 3 is the legal sense. In WSD, domain tags usually take precedence when the definition aligns.
    The definition of Sense 3 aligns: "means by which ... fact ... is established".
    The judge says: No such means exist to establish the fact (jury passion).
    This is Sense 3.

    Wait, is the jury passion an "alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial"?
    Yes, it's the subject of the appeal/hearing.
    So Sense 3 is the perfect technical fit. Sense 1 is the general fit.
    Fine-grained WSD prefers the technical/domain fit when available and applicable.

    Decision: Sense 3.

provider: Chutes


attempt_kind: initial

status: success

[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: jury
Target surface form: jury
Context:
On Thursday, the widely followed trial of Steven J. Hayes, who was convicted of killing three members of a Cheshire, Conn., family, is set to come to an official end with the judge's imposition of the death sentence voted for by the jury. But lawyers for Mr. Hayes have already made court filings that sketch out appeals arguments that are likely to occupy the courts for years. One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the <t>jury</t> was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=jury%1:14:00:: | definition=a body of citizens sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence presented in a court of law
2. sense_key=jury%1:14:01:: | definition=a committee appointed to judge a competition | synonyms=panel

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

finish_reason: stop

role: assistant

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the target word and context:**
    *   Target lemma: `jury`
    *   Target surface form: `jury`
    *   Context: A legal setting involving a trial, a judge, lawyers, a conviction, a death sentence, and appeals. The text mentions "the jury was improperly swayed by public passions" and "there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion." It discusses Steven J. Hayes's trial for murder.

2.  **Analyze the candidate senses:**
    *   Sense 1: `jury%1:14:00::` | Definition: "a body of citizens sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence presented in a court of law"
    *   Sense 2: `jury%1:14:01::` | Definition: "a committee appointed to judge a competition" | Synonyms: panel

3.  **Perform Word Sense Disambiguation:**
    *   The context is explicitly about a courtroom trial ("trial of Steven J. Hayes", "convicted", "death sentence", "judge's imposition", "lawyers", "court filings", "appeals", "fair-trial rights").
    *   Sense 1 refers to a legal jury in a court of law.
    *   Sense 2 refers to a jury for a competition (like a talent show jury or an art competition panel).
    *   The context fits Sense 1 perfectly.
    *   The context does not fit Sense 2 at all (no competition is being judged, this is a criminal trial).

4.  **Select the best indexed sense:**
    *   Sense 1 is the correct match.
    *   The index corresponds to the order provided in the "Candidate senses" list.
    *   Sense 1 is index 1.

5.  **Format the output:**
    *   The user requested a JSON object: `{"sense_index": 1}`.

format: unknown

native_finish_reason: stop

provider: AtlasCloud

currency: USD


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: passion
Target surface form: passion
Context:
On Thursday, the widely followed trial of Steven J. Hayes, who was convicted of killing three members of a Cheshire, Conn., family, is set to come to an official end with the judge's imposition of the death sentence voted for by the jury. But lawyers for Mr. Hayes have already made court filings that sketch out appeals arguments that are likely to occupy the courts for years. One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by <t>passion</t>. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=passion%1:12:00:: | definition=a strong feeling or emotion | synonyms=passionateness
2. sense_key=passion%1:07:00:: | definition=the trait of being intensely emotional | synonyms=heat, warmth
3. sense_key=passion%1:26:01:: | definition=something that is desired intensely | synonyms=rage | examples=his rage for fame destroyed him
4. sense_key=passion%1:16:00:: | definition=an irrational but irresistible motive for a belief or action | synonyms=mania, cacoethes
5. sense_key=passion%1:12:02:: | definition=a feeling of strong sexual desire
6. sense_key=passion%1:09:00:: | definition=any object of warm affection or devotion | synonyms=love | examples=the theater was her first love; he has a passion for cock fighting
7. sense_key=passion%1:26:02:: | definition=the suffering of Jesus at the Crucifixion | synonyms=Passion of Christ

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
Let me analyze the context and the candidate senses to determine which one best fits the use of "passion" in this passage.

The context is about a trial where lawyers claim that intense media reporting created a "circus atmosphere" and that the jury was "improperly swayed by public passions." Later, it mentions that there was no evidence the jury was "driven by passion."

In this context, "passion" seems to refer to strong emotions or feelings that could influence judgment - specifically, intense emotional reactions from the public and potentially affecting the jury's impartiality.

Let's evaluate each candidate sense:

1. sense_key=passion%1:12:00:: | definition=a strong feeling or emotion | synonyms=passionateness
This definition fits well with the context. The passage discusses how public emotions might have improperly influenced the jury. "Public passions" here refers to strong emotional reactions from the public.

2. sense_key=passion%1:07:00:: | definition=the trait of being intensely emotional | synonyms=heat, warmth
This is more about a character trait of being emotional rather than specific emotions. The context is discussing specific emotional reactions to the trial, not a character trait.

3. sense_key=passion%1:26:01:: | definition=something that is desired intensely | synonyms=rage | examples=his rage for fame destroyed him
This doesn't fit well. The context isn't about something desired intensely, but about emotional reactions.

4. sense_key=passion%1:16:00:: | definition=an irrational but irresistible motive for a belief or action | synonyms=mania, cacoethes
This could partially fit, as the lawyers are suggesting the jury was improperly motivated. However, the context is more about general emotional influence from the public rather than a specific irrational motive.

5. sense_key=passion%1:12:02:: | definition=a feeling of strong sexual desire
This doesn't fit the context at all. The passage is about a murder trial, not sexual desire.

6. sense_key=passion%1:09:00:: | definition=any object of warm affection or devotion | synonyms=love | examples=the theater was her first love; he has a passion for cock fighting
This doesn't fit the context. The passage isn't discussing something that people are devoted to.

7. sense_key=passion%1:26:02:: | definition=the suffering of Jesus at the Crucifixion | synonyms=Passion of Christ
This is a religious sense that doesn't fit the legal context at all.

Based on the analysis, sense 1 ("a strong feeling or emotion") seems to be the best fit for how "passion" is used in this context. The passage is discussing how strong public emotions might have improperly influenced the jury's decision-making.

provider: Novita


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: last_word
Target surface form: last word
Context:
But lawyers for Mr. Hayes have already made court filings that sketch out appeals arguments that are likely to occupy the courts for years. One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the <t>last word</t> on the issue. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=last_word%1:10:00:: | definition=the final statement in a verbal argument | examples=she always gets the last word
2. sense_key=last_word%1:10:01:: | definition=an authoritative statement | examples=my doctor has the last word on the medicines I take
3. sense_key=last_word%1:07:00:: | definition=elegance by virtue of being fashionable | synonyms=chic, chicness, chichi, modishness, smartness, stylishness

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the Target:** The target lemma is "last_word" (noun). The surface form is "last word". The context is a legal article about an appeal regarding the impact of social media on a trial.

2.  **Analyze the Context:**
    *   The text describes a situation where a trial judge rejected a claim regarding media influence.
    *   The specific sentence is: "But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue."
    *   Meaning: The judge's ruling wasn't the final decision/conclusion on this matter; appeals courts will likely continue to debate it.

3.  **Analyze the Candidate Senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `last_word%1:10:00::`
        *   Definition: "the final statement in a verbal argument"
        *   Example: "she always gets the last word"
        *   Fit: This sense refers specifically to a verbal sparring match or a conversation where someone gets to speak last. While the legal context involves arguments, the phrase "last word on the issue" here implies a final decision or definitive resolution from an authority, not just the final utterance in a conversation.

    *   **Sense 2:** `last_word%1:10:01::`
        *   Definition: "an authoritative statement"
        *   Example: "my doctor has the last word on the medicines I take"
        *   Fit: This sense refers to a final, binding decision or an authoritative pronouncement that settles a matter. In the context of the legal system, a judge's ruling or a higher court's decision acts as the "last word." The text says the judge's ruling was *not* likely to be the last word, implying there is no definitive, authoritative resolution yet. This matches the concept of a final legal ruling or settlement of an issue.

    *   **Sense 3:** `last_word%1:07:00::`
        *   Definition: "elegance by virtue of being fashionable"
        *   Synonyms: chic, chicness, etc.
        *   Fit: Completely unrelated to the legal context.

4.  **Compare Sense 1 and Sense 2:**
    *   Sense 1 is about the final utterance in a dispute (often colloquial).
    *   Sense 2 is about an authoritative decision or the final say in a matter (often used in professional or formal contexts like law or medicine).
    *   The context is about court rulings and appeals. The "last word" refers to a final legal resolution or decision. The judge made a ruling, but it's not the final authoritative decision because appeals are expected. This aligns perfectly with Sense 2.

5.  **Conclusion:** Sense 2 is the correct choice.

6.  **Format Output:** JSON object `{"sense_index": 2}`.

provider: StreamLake


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: issue
Target surface form: issue
Context:
But lawyers for Mr. Hayes have already made court filings that sketch out appeals arguments that are likely to occupy the courts for years. One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the <t>issue</t>. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=issue%1:09:01:: | definition=an important question that is in dispute and must be settled | examples=the issue could be settled by requiring public education for everyone; politicians never discuss the real issues
2. sense_key=issue%1:10:00:: | definition=one of a series published periodically | synonyms=number | examples=she found an old issue of the magazine in her dentist's waiting room
3. sense_key=issue%1:09:00:: | definition=some situation or event that is thought about | synonyms=topic, subject, matter | examples=he kept drifting off the topic; he had been thinking about the subject for several years
4. sense_key=issue%1:04:01:: | definition=the act of providing an item for general use or for official purposes (usually in quantity) | synonyms=issuing, issuance | examples=a new issue of stamps; the last issue of penicillin was over a month ago
5. sense_key=issue%1:21:01:: | definition=supplies (as food or clothing or ammunition) issued by the government | synonyms=military issue, government issue
6. sense_key=issue%1:21:00:: | definition=the income or profit arising from such transactions as the sale of land or other property | synonyms=return, take, takings, proceeds, yield, payoff | examples=the average return was about 5%
7. sense_key=issue%1:19:00:: | definition=a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon | synonyms=consequence, effect, outcome, result, event, upshot | examples=the magnetic effect was greater when the rod was lengthwise; his decision had depressing consequences for business
8. sense_key=issue%1:18:00:: | definition=the immediate descendants of a person | synonyms=offspring, progeny | examples=she was the mother of many offspring; he died without issue
9. sense_key=issue%1:11:00:: | definition=the becoming visible | synonyms=emergence, egress | examples=not a day's difference between the emergence of the andrenas and the opening of the willow catkins
10. sense_key=issue%1:06:00:: | definition=an opening that permits escape or release | synonyms=exit, outlet, way out | examples=he blocked the way out; the canyon had only one issue
11. sense_key=issue%1:04:00:: | definition=the act of issuing printed materials | synonyms=publication

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

raw_output:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the context:**
    *   Target word: "issue" (noun).
    *   Sentence: "But that is not likely to be the last word on the <t>issue</t>."
    *   Preceding context: Lawyers are making appeals. One argument is that Twitter reporting created a "circus atmosphere" and swayed the jury. The judge rejected this claim.
    *   Following context: Appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness.
    *   Meaning in context: The "issue" refers to the specific legal question or point of dispute regarding the impact of new technology (Twitter/media coverage) on the fairness of the trial. It is a matter of debate or dispute that needs resolution by the courts.

2.  **Evaluate the candidate senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `issue%1:09:01::` | definition=an important question that is in dispute and must be settled | examples=the issue could be settled by requiring public education for everyone; politicians never discuss the real issues.
        *   *Analysis:* This fits perfectly. The context discusses a legal argument (claim) that was rejected by a judge but is being appealed. It is a specific point of dispute (does technology affect fair trial rights?) that must be settled by the courts. The phrase "not likely to be the last word on the issue" implies a dispute in progress.

    *   **Sense 2:** `issue%1:10:00::` | definition=one of a series published periodically | synonyms=number.
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. No magazines or serials mentioned.

    *   **Sense 3:** `issue%1:09:00::` | definition=some situation or event that is thought about | synonyms=topic, subject, matter.
        *   *Analysis:* This is a close second, but usually refers to a general subject of thought or conversation. Sense 1 is more specific ("in dispute and must be settled"). The context involves a legal battle and appeals, which fits "dispute" and "settlement" (judgment) better than just a "topic". While it is a "matter," Sense 1 captures the contentious nature of a legal "issue" better. In legal contexts, "issue" almost always refers to Sense 1 (a matter in dispute). Let's double-check the hierarchy. Sense 1 is a hyponym of "question". Sense 3 is a hyponym of "content/cognitive content". The text says "the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules... not likely to be the last word on the issue." Here "issue" is co-referential with "the question". This strongly points to Sense 1.

    *   **Sense 4:** `issue%1:04:01::` | definition=the act of providing an item for general use or for official purposes.
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. No distribution of items.

    *   **Sense 5:** `issue%1:21:01::` | definition=supplies (as food or clothing or ammunition) issued by the government.
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. No military supplies.

    *   **Sense 6:** `issue%1:21:00::` | definition=the income or profit arising from such transactions...
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. No financial returns.

    *   **Sense 7:** `issue%1:19:00::` | definition=a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon.
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. Not a result/consequence.

    *   **Sense 8:** `issue%1:18:00::` | definition=the immediate descendants of a person.
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. Not offspring.

    *   **Sense 9:** `issue%1:11:00::` | definition=the becoming visible.
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. Not emergence.

    *   **Sense 10:** `issue%1:06:00::` | definition=an opening that permits escape or release.
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. Not an outlet.

    *   **Sense 11:** `issue%1:04:00::` | definition=the act of issuing printed materials.
        *   *Analysis:* Incorrect. Not publication.

3.  **Conclusion:**
    The context refers to a legal point of dispute ("the question of whether..."). The sentence explicitly mentions "grapple with the question... last word on the issue." Sense 1 defines it as "an important question that is in dispute and must be settled." This is the precise legal definition of an issue. Sense 3 is too vague ("situation... thought about"). Sense 1 is the specific fit for legal and argumentative contexts.

    Target: Sense 1.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: decade
Target surface form: decades
Context:
One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue. For <t>decades</t>, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness. In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife, saying in its decision, Sheppard v. Maxwell, that there was a "carnival atmosphere at trial" because of the news media.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=decade%1:28:00:: | definition=a period of 10 years | synonyms=decennary, decennium
2. sense_key=decade%1:23:00:: | definition=the cardinal number that is the sum of nine and one; the base of the decimal system | synonyms=ten, 10, X, tenner

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the Request:**
    *   Target lemma: decade
    *   Target surface form: decades
    *   Context: A passage discussing a legal trial, media coverage (Twitter), appeals, and the historical context of media influence on trials (mentioning 1966 Sheppard v. Maxwell).
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  decade%1:28:00:: | definition=a period of 10 years | synonyms=decennary, decennium
        2.  decade%1:23:00:: | definition=the cardinal number that is the sum of nine and one; the base of the decimal system | synonyms=ten, 10, X, tenner
    *   Constraint: Return JSON `{"sense_index": X}` only.

2.  **Analyze the Context:**
    *   The sentence containing the target is: "For <t>decades</t>, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness."
    *   Preposition usage: "For decades". This is a common temporal phrase.
    *   Meaning: The sentence implies a long period of time during which appeals courts have held a certain view.
    *   Historical markers: The text mentions a "landmark 1966 ruling". The current context seems to be modern (mentions of Twitter). The span from 1966 to a modern Twitter-era trial covers multiple 10-year periods.
    *   Usage of "decades" (plural): It refers to multiple periods of ten years, implying a long duration.

3.  **Evaluate Candidate Senses:**
    *   **Sense 1 (Time period):** "a period of 10 years".
        *   Fits perfectly with "For decades". "For periods of 10 years" makes sense as a duration.
        *   Synonyms "decennary, decennium" are technical terms for this unit of time.
    *   **Sense 2 (Number):** "the cardinal number that is the sum of nine and one...".
        *   Synonyms: "ten, 10, X, tenner".
        *   Usage: This sense is usually used when counting or identifying the number itself (e.g., "a decade of soldiers" - rare/archaic, or just the number 10).
        *   In the phrase "For decades", we are talking about time duration, not the number 10 abstractly. While a decade contains the number 10, the word "decade" in this context refers to the *unit of time*, not the cardinal number itself.

4.  **Compare and Decide:**
    *   Context clearly indicates a duration of time.
    *   Sense 1 defines the time period.
    *   Sense 2 defines the number.
    *   "For decades" is a standard temporal expression using Sense 1.

5.  **Formulate Output:**
    *   The correct sense is Sense 1.
    *   The index is 1.

    JSON format: `{"sense_index": 1}`


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: coverage
Target surface form: coverage
Context:
One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that <t>coverage</t> of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness. In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife, saying in its decision, Sheppard v. Maxwell, that there was a "carnival atmosphere at trial" because of the news media.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=coverage%1:21:00:: | definition=the total amount and type of insurance carried | synonyms=insurance coverage
2. sense_key=coverage%1:07:00:: | definition=the extent to which something is covered | examples=the dictionary's coverage of standard English is excellent
3. sense_key=coverage%1:10:00:: | definition=the news as presented by reporters for newspapers or radio or television | synonyms=reporting, reportage | examples=they accused the paper of biased coverage of race relations

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the Request:**
    *   **Task:** Fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD).
    *   **Target Lemma:** coverage.
    *   **Context:** A paragraph discussing the impact of intense reporting on a trial (referencing the Hayes trial and the Sam Sheppard case). It talks about news media, reporters, Twitter, and fairness of trials.
    *   **Candidate Senses:**
        1.  Insurance coverage.
        2.  Extent of covering something (general/abstract).
        3.  News reporting.
    *   **Constraints:** Choose single best indexed sense, no hedging, use context/examples/synonyms, return only JSON `{"sense_index": X}`.

2.  **Analyze the Target Word in Context:**
    *   Sentence: "For decades, appeals courts have recognized that *coverage* of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness."
    *   Preceding context: Discusses "intense reporting," "mainstream reporters," "news media," "biased coverage of race relations" (implied nature of the topic).
    *   The word refers to how the news media reports on a legal case.

3.  **Evaluate Candidate Senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `coverage%1:21:00::` - "the total amount and type of insurance carried".
        *   *Context fit:* Does this sentence talk about insurance? No. It talks about trials and media. Irrelevant.

    *   **Sense 2:** `coverage%1:07:00::` - "the extent to which something is covered".
        *   *Context fit:* While one could argue "coverage" covers the extent of reporting, this sense usually refers to things like dictionary coverage (as per the example) or geographic coverage. It's a bit too abstract/general. The context specifically talks about news reports.

    *   **Sense 3:** `coverage%1:10:00::` - "the news as presented by reporters for newspapers or radio or television".
        *   *Synonyms:* reporting, reportage.
        *   *Examples:* "they accused the paper of biased coverage of race relations".
        *   *Context fit:* The text explicitly mentions "intense reporting," "mainstream reporters," and "news media." The target sentence mentions "coverage of notorious cases." This aligns perfectly with the definition "the news as presented by reporters." The example provided ("biased coverage") also parallels the context's concern about how the coverage affects fairness.

4.  **Determine the Best Sense:**
    *   Sense 3 is clearly the correct choice. The context is explicitly about journalism and news reporting.

5.  **Format Output:**
    *   The user requested a JSON object.
    *   Format: `{"sense_index": 3}`.

provider: Venice


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: case
Target surface form: cases
Context:
One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious <t>cases</t> can raise questions about a trial's fairness. In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife, saying in its decision, Sheppard v. Maxwell, that there was a "carnival atmosphere at trial" because of the news media.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=case%1:11:00:: | definition=an occurrence of something | synonyms=instance, example | examples=it was a case of bad judgment; another instance occurred yesterday
2. sense_key=case%1:26:00:: | definition=a special set of circumstances | synonyms=event | examples=in that event, the first possibility is excluded; it may rain in which case the picnic will be canceled
3. sense_key=case%1:04:00:: | definition=a comprehensive term for any proceeding in a court of law whereby an individual seeks a legal remedy | synonyms=lawsuit, suit, cause, causa | examples=the family brought suit against the landlord
4. sense_key=case%1:09:00:: | definition=the actual state of things | examples=that was not the case
5. sense_key=case%1:06:00:: | definition=a portable container for carrying several objects | examples=the musicians left their instrument cases backstage
6. sense_key=case%1:18:03:: | definition=a person requiring professional services | examples=a typical case was the suburban housewife described by a marriage counselor
7. sense_key=case%1:18:02:: | definition=a person who is subjected to experimental or other observational procedures; someone who is an object of investigation | synonyms=subject, guinea pig | examples=the subjects for this investigation were selected randomly; the cases that we studied were drawn from two different communities
8. sense_key=case%1:10:02:: | definition=a problem requiring investigation | examples=Perry Mason solved the case of the missing heir
9. sense_key=case%1:10:01:: | definition=a statement of facts and reasons used to support an argument | examples=he stated his case clearly
10. sense_key=case%1:23:00:: | definition=the quantity contained in a case | synonyms=caseful
11. sense_key=case%1:10:00:: | definition=nouns or pronouns or adjectives (often marked by inflection) related in some way to other words in a sentence | synonyms=grammatical case
12. sense_key=case%1:26:02:: | definition=a specific state of mind that is temporary | examples=a case of the jitters
13. sense_key=case%1:18:04:: | definition=a person of a specified kind (usually with many eccentricities) | synonyms=character, eccentric, type | examples=a real character; a strange character
14. sense_key=case%1:10:03:: | definition=a specific size and style of type within a type family | synonyms=font, fount, typeface, face
15. sense_key=case%1:08:00:: | definition=an enveloping structure or covering enclosing an animal or plant organ or part | synonyms=sheath
16. sense_key=case%1:06:06:: | definition=the housing or outer covering of something | synonyms=shell, casing | examples=the clock has a walnut case
17. sense_key=case%1:06:07:: | definition=the enclosing frame around a door or window opening | synonyms=casing | examples=the casings had rotted away and had to be replaced
18. sense_key=case%1:06:03:: | definition=(printing) the receptacle in which a compositor has his type, which is divided into compartments for the different letters, spaces, or numbers | synonyms=compositor's case, typesetter's case | examples=for English, a compositor will ordinarily have two such cases, the upper case containing the capitals and the lower case containing the small letters
19. sense_key=case%1:06:02:: | definition=bed linen consisting of a cover for a pillow | synonyms=pillowcase, slip, pillow slip | examples=the burglar carried his loot in a pillowcase
20. sense_key=case%1:06:01:: | definition=a glass container used to store and display items in a shop or museum or home | synonyms=display case, showcase, vitrine

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) for the target word "cases" in a specific context.

**Context Analysis:**
- The text discusses legal proceedings, trials, appeals, and media coverage.
- The specific sentence is: "For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious **cases** can raise questions about a trial's fairness."
- The word "cases" refers to legal matters being adjudicated. Specifically, "notorious cases" means well-known legal trials or lawsuits.

**Candidate Sense Analysis:**

1.  `case%1:11:00::` - "an occurrence of something" (synonyms: instance, example). Too general. While a legal case is an occurrence, this sense usually refers to "a case of bad judgment" or "a case of the flu".
2.  `case%1:26:00::` - "a special set of circumstances" (synonyms: event). This refers to situations like "in case of rain". Not appropriate here.
3.  `case%1:04:00::` - "a comprehensive term for any proceeding in a court of law..." (synonyms: lawsuit, suit, cause, causa). This fits perfectly. The context mentions "trial", "appeals judges", "courtroom", "conviction", "ruling", "Sheppard v. Maxwell". The "notorious cases" are legal proceedings/lawsuits.
4.  `case%1:09:00::` - "the actual state of things". Not relevant.
5.  `case%1:06:00::` - "a portable container". Not relevant.
6.  `case%1:18:03::` - "a person requiring professional services". Medical context usually. Not relevant.
7.  `case%1:18:02::` - "a person who is subjected to experimental or other observational procedures". Medical/sociological context. Not relevant.
8.  `case%1:10:02::` - "a problem requiring investigation". This is often used for detective work ("Perry Mason solved the case"). While a legal case involves investigation, in the context of "appeals courts" and "coverage of notorious cases", it refers to the legal proceeding itself rather than the mystery aspect. Sense 3 is more specific to the legal proceeding definition. WordNet often distinguishes between "lawsuit" (Sense 3) and "investigation" (Sense 8). Here, the "case" is a matter before the court.
9.  `case%1:10:01::` - "a statement of facts and reasons used to support an argument". Not relevant.
10. `case%1:23:00::` - "the quantity contained in a case". Not relevant.
11. `case%1:10:00::` - "nouns or pronouns..." (grammatical case). Not relevant.
... (remaining senses are clearly not related to legal proceedings).

**Disambiguating between Sense 3 and Sense 8:**
- Sense 3: "a comprehensive term for any proceeding in a court of law...". Synonyms: lawsuit, suit.
- Sense 8: "a problem requiring investigation". Example: "Perry Mason solved the case of the missing heir".

The text explicitly discusses "trial", "appeals judges", "courtroom rules", "conviction", "ruling". It references "Sheppard v. Maxwell" as a "landmark 1966 ruling". The phrase "coverage of notorious cases" refers to the media coverage of the legal proceedings. Therefore, Sense 3 is the correct choice. It refers to the legal action/lawsuit/proceeding.

**Conclusion:**
Sense 3 is the definition of a legal case/lawsuit.

provider: DeepInfra


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: question
Target surface form: questions
Context:
One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise <t>questions</t> about a trial's fairness. In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife, saying in its decision, Sheppard v. Maxwell, that there was a "carnival atmosphere at trial" because of the news media.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=question%1:10:00:: | definition=an instance of questioning | synonyms=inquiry, enquiry, query, interrogation | examples=there was a question about my training; we made inquiries of all those who were present
2. sense_key=question%1:10:01:: | definition=the subject matter at issue | synonyms=head | examples=the question of disease merits serious discussion; under the head of minor Roman poets
3. sense_key=question%1:10:03:: | definition=a sentence of inquiry that asks for a reply | synonyms=interrogation, interrogative, interrogative sentence | examples=he asked a direct question; he had trouble phrasing his interrogations
4. sense_key=question%1:07:00:: | definition=uncertainty about the truth or factuality or existence of something | synonyms=doubt, dubiousness, doubtfulness | examples=the dubiousness of his claim; there is no question about the validity of the enterprise
5. sense_key=question%1:10:02:: | definition=a formal proposal for action made to a deliberative assembly for discussion and vote | synonyms=motion | examples=he made a motion to adjourn; she called for the question
6. sense_key=question%1:10:04:: | definition=an informal reference to a marriage proposal | examples=he was ready to pop the question

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

raw_output:
```json
{"sense_index": 4}
```

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 4}
```

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the target word and context:**
    *   Target lemma: *question* (noun).
    *   Target surface form: *questions*.
    *   Context sentence: "For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise **questions** about a trial's fairness."
    *   Broader context: The text discusses media coverage of trials, specifically the impact of Twitter and "circus atmosphere" on jury impartiality. It mentions a specific claim about technology affecting fair-trial rights.

2.  **Evaluate the candidate senses:**

    *   *Sense 1: an instance of questioning (inquiry, enquiry, query).*
        *   Does "raise questions" mean "raise inquiries" here?
        *   "Coverage ... can raise inquiries about a trial's fairness." This is close, but "raise questions" usually implies creating issues or points of debate/uncertainty rather than specific acts of asking someone. It's possible, but often implies a more specific act of asking. Let's look at others.

    *   *Sense 2: the subject matter at issue (head).*
        *   Definition: "the subject matter at issue".
        *   Example: "the question of disease..."
        *   Does "raise questions about a trial's fairness" fit "raise subject matter at issue"? Not really. This sense usually refers to "the question of X" as a topic. "The question of fairness" is the topic. Here, coverage *raises* questions. It creates issues.

    *   *Sense 3: a sentence of inquiry that asks for a reply (interrogation).*
        *   Does "raise questions" mean "raise sentences of inquiry"? No. Media coverage doesn't usually "raise sentences" about fairness; it creates doubts or issues.

    *   *Sense 4: uncertainty about the truth or factuality or existence of something (doubt, dubiousness).*
        *   Definition: "uncertainty about the truth or factuality or existence of something".
        *   Synonyms: *doubt*.
        *   Context: "coverage ... can raise **questions** about a trial's fairness."
        *   Paraphrase: "coverage ... can raise **doubts** about a trial's fairness."
        *   Does this fit? Yes, perfectly. When media coverage creates a circus atmosphere, it makes people uncertain or doubtful about whether the trial was fair. This is the standard meaning in phrases like "raise questions about [something]". It means to cast doubt upon.

    *   *Sense 5: a formal proposal for action (motion).*
        *   Context is legal, but it's about court rulings/appeals, not parliamentary procedure or voting on a motion. Irrelevant.

    *   *Sense 6: an informal reference to a marriage proposal.*
        *   Irrelevant.

3.  **Compare Sense 1 and Sense 4:**
    *   Sense 1 (Inquiry): "He asked a question." "There was a question about my training." (meaning an inquiry).
    *   Sense 4 (Doubt/Uncertainty): "The question of validity." "There is no question about..." (meaning no doubt).
    *   In the phrase "raise questions about X", the implication is usually that the validity or truth of X is being challenged or made uncertain.
    *   If I say "The new evidence raises questions about his alibi," I mean it creates doubt about his alibi. It doesn't necessarily mean someone is standing up and asking a specific interrogative sentence (Sense 3) or making a formal inquiry (Sense 1, though Sense 1 can be abstract). However, the definition "uncertainty about the truth" (Sense 4) captures the semantic effect of "raising questions" in this context perfectly. It creates an issue of uncertainty regarding the fairness.
    *   WordNet Sense 4 examples: "the dubiousness of his claim", "there is no question about the validity".
    *   Context: "raise questions about a trial's fairness." This means to cast doubt on the fairness.
    *   Therefore, Sense 4 is the best fit.

4.  **Final Decision:**
    *   The text says coverage "can raise questions about a trial's fairness."
    *   This means coverage can create uncertainty or doubt regarding the fairness.
    *   Sense 4 corresponds to "uncertainty about the truth or factuality or existence of something".

    *   Let's double check the indexing.
    *   1: question%1:10:00:: (instance of questioning)
    *   2: question%1:10:01:: (subject matter at issue)
    *   3: question%1:10:03:: (sentence of inquiry)
    *   4: question%1:07:00:: (uncertainty about the truth...)
    *   5: question%1:10:02:: (formal proposal)
    *   6: question%1:10:04:: (marriage proposal)

    *   Wait, let's look at the WordNet hierarchy mapping.
    *   Sense 4 (index 4 in the provided list) has sense_key `question%1:07:00::`. This is the "doubt" sense.
    *   Let's verify Sense 2 (`question%1:10:01::` "the subject matter at issue"). Example: "the question of disease". In the context "raise questions about...", is it raising topics (Sense 2) or raising doubts (Sense 4)?
    *   Usually, "raise questions" idiomatically means "create doubt".
    *   If it were "The question of fairness was discussed", Sense 2 might apply.
    *   But "raise questions" acts transitively on the object "fairness". It puts the fairness into question (doubt).
    *   Therefore, Sense 4 is the precise definition for "a matter for doubt or dispute" / "uncertainty". The synonym list for Sense 4 includes "doubt". "Coverage can raise doubts about a trial's fairness" makes perfect sense.

    *   Is it possible it's Sense 1? "An instance of questioning". "There was a question about my training". This is ambiguous. It could mean "there was a doubt" or "there was an inquiry". However, Sense 4 specifically maps to the noun synset {doubt, dubiousness, doubtfulness, question}. This synset is the one used in phrases like "without question" (without doubt) or "raise a question" (raise a doubt). Sense 1 maps to {question, inquiry, enquiry...}. While related, the "uncertainty" aspect is dominant in "raise questions about validity/fairness".

    *   Let's look at Sense 2 again. "The subject matter at issue". Synonyms: head. Example: "under the head of minor Roman poets". This is a topic label. "Raise questions" creates the topic, but the semantic weight is on the *challenge* to the status quo (fairness). That challenge is doubt.

    *   Conclusion: Sense 4 is the correct choice.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: trial
Target surface form: trial
Context:
One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a <t>trial</t>'s fairness. In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife, saying in its decision, Sheppard v. Maxwell, that there was a "carnival atmosphere at trial" because of the news media.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=trial%1:04:00:: | definition=the act of testing something | synonyms=test, run | examples=in the experimental trials the amount of carbon was measured separately; he called each flip of the coin a new trial
2. sense_key=trial%1:09:00:: | definition=trying something to find out about it | synonyms=trial run, test, tryout | examples=a sample for ten days free trial; a trial of progesterone failed to relieve the pain
3. sense_key=trial%1:04:03:: | definition=the act of undergoing testing | synonyms=test | examples=he survived the great test of battle; candidates must compete in a trial of skill
4. sense_key=trial%1:04:02:: | definition=(law) the determination of a person's innocence or guilt by due process of law | examples=he had a fair trial and the jury found him guilty; most of these complaints are settled before they go to trial
5. sense_key=trial%1:11:01:: | definition=(sports) a preliminary competition to determine qualifications | examples=the trials for the semifinals began yesterday
6. sense_key=trial%1:11:00:: | definition=an annoying or frustrating or catastrophic event | synonyms=tribulation, visitation | examples=his mother-in-law's visits were a great trial for him; life is full of tribulations

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 4}
```

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the context:**
    *   **Context:** "One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial... created a 'circus atmosphere'... jury was improperly swayed... appeals judges to grapple... courtroom rules... individual's fair-trial rights... The trial judge... rejected the claims... coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness... overturned the conviction... carnival atmosphere at trial..."
    *   **Keywords:** "jury", "courtroom", "judge", "conviction", "defense lawyer", "innocence or guilt", "fair-trial rights".
    *   **Target word:** "trial" (used multiple times in the text, always referring to the same concept: a legal proceeding).

2.  **Analyze the candidate senses:**
    *   **Sense 1:** "the act of testing something" (scientific testing, experimental trials). *Mismatch.*
    *   **Sense 2:** "trying something to find out about it" (trial run, tryout). *Mismatch.*
    *   **Sense 3:** "the act of undergoing testing" (test of skill, test of battle). *Mismatch.*
    *   **Sense 4:** "(law) the determination of a person's innocence or guilt by due process of law". Examples: "fair trial", "go to trial". *Match.* The context is explicitly legal, involving a jury, a judge, a defense lawyer, and a conviction.
    *   **Sense 5:** "(sports) a preliminary competition". *Mismatch.*
    *   **Sense 6:** "an annoying or frustrating or catastrophic event". *Mismatch.*

3.  **Compare Context with Best Sense (Sense 4):**
    *   The text discusses a specific legal case involving Mr. Hayes, a jury, a judge (Jon C. Blue), and appeals.
    *   The phrase "fair-trial rights" directly aligns with the example "he had a fair trial" in Sense 4.
    *   The concept of determining guilt/innocence is central to the context (mention of "conviction", "innocence or guilt" in definition).

4.  **Conclusion:**
    *   Sense 4 is the correct definition for the legal proceeding described in the text.

5.  **Format Output:**
    *   The user wants a JSON object: `{"sense_index": X}`.
    *   Sense 4 corresponds to index 4 (since the list is numbered 1 to 6).

    *Wait, let me double-check the indexing in the prompt.*
    1. trial%1:04:00:: ...
    2. trial%1:09:00:: ...
    3. trial%1:04:03:: ...
    4. trial%1:04:02:: ... (law) the determination...
    5. trial%1:11:01:: ...
    6. trial%1:11:00:: ...

    Index 4 is the correct sense.

provider: Baidu


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: fairness
Target surface form: fairness
Context:
One of the most provocative is that the intense reporting on the trial - including mainstream reporters' extensive use of Twitter - created a "circus atmosphere" and such widespread, instant saturation with inflammatory details that the jury was improperly swayed by public passions. The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's <t>fairness</t>. In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife, saying in its decision, Sheppard v. Maxwell, that there was a "carnival atmosphere at trial" because of the news media.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=fairness%1:07:00:: | definition=conformity with rules or standards | synonyms=equity | examples=the judge recognized the fairness of my claim
2. sense_key=fairness%1:09:00:: | definition=ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty | synonyms=fair-mindedness, candor, candour
3. sense_key=fairness%1:07:01:: | definition=the property of having a naturally light complexion | synonyms=paleness, blondness
4. sense_key=fairness%1:07:02:: | definition=the quality of being good looking and attractive | synonyms=comeliness, loveliness, beauteousness

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 1}
```

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the Request:**
    *   **Task:** Perform fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD).
    *   **Target Lemma:** fairness.
    *   **Context:** A text about a trial, media coverage (Twitter, "circus atmosphere"), jury bias, and appeals regarding the fairness of the trial.
    *   **Candidate Senses:**
        1.  conformity with rules or standards (synonyms: equity).
        2.  ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty (synonyms: fair-mindedness).
        3.  the property of having a naturally light complexion (synonyms: paleness).
        4.  the quality of being good looking and attractive (synonyms: comeliness).
    *   **Output Format:** JSON `{"sense_index": X}`.

2.  **Analyze the Context:**
    *   The text discusses a legal trial (Mr. Hayes, Judge Jon C. Blue, Sheppard v. Maxwell).
    *   The core issue is whether media coverage and technology (Twitter) compromised the trial's integrity.
    *   The specific phrase is: "coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's **fairness**."
    *   The text mentions "fair-trial rights" earlier.
    *   It refers to the "carnival atmosphere" potentially swaying the jury improperly.
    *   The context is legal procedural justice.

3.  **Analyze the Candidate Senses:**

    *   *Sense 1: conformity with rules or standards (equity).*
        *   This refers to adhering to established laws or standards of justice.
        *   Example: "the judge recognized the fairness of my claim" (legal context).
        *   Fit: In a legal context, a "fair trial" is one conducted according to established rules and standards of due process. The "fairness of a trial" implies whether the trial was conducted properly.

    *   *Sense 2: ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty (fair-mindedness).*
        *   This usually applies to a *person* (the judge or jury). One might say a judge has fairness (fair-mindedness).
        *   Fit: The text talks about the *trial's* fairness, not the *judge's* or *jury's* inherent personality trait of fairness (though the jury being swayed relates to it, the noun phrase "trial's fairness" refers to the event/process, not the agent's attribute).
        *   Distinction: Sense 1 is about the conformity of the process (the trial). Sense 2 is about the attribute of a person. The text says "trial's fairness".

    *   *Sense 3: the property of having a naturally light complexion.*
        *   Fit: Irrelevant to legal trials.

    *   *Sense 4: the quality of being good looking and attractive.*
        *   Fit: Irrelevant to legal trials.

4.  **Compare Sense 1 and Sense 2 (The only plausible contenders):**
    *   The phrase is "trial's fairness".
    *   Does a trial have "fair-mindedness"? No, people do. A trial is a process.
    *   Does a trial have "conformity with rules or standards"? Yes. A "fair trial" is a standard legal concept defined by procedural rules (lack of bias, proper jury selection, lack of external influence).
    *   The context discusses whether the "circus atmosphere" violated the standards required for a legal proceeding.
    *   Therefore, Sense 1 is the correct match. It captures the procedural aspect of justice.

5.  **Final Selection:**
    *   Sense 1: "conformity with rules or standards".

6.  **Format Output:**
    *   JSON: `{"sense_index": 1}`.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: conviction
Target surface form: conviction
Context:
The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness. In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the <t>conviction</t> of a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife, saying in its decision, Sheppard v. Maxwell, that there was a "carnival atmosphere at trial" because of the news media. The crime is believed by some to have been the inspiration for the television show and the movie "The Fugitive."

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=conviction%1:09:00:: | definition=an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence | synonyms=strong belief, article of faith
2. sense_key=conviction%1:04:00:: | definition=(criminal law) a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the punishment that is imposed | synonyms=judgment of conviction, condemnation, sentence | examples=the conviction came as no surprise

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the target word**: The lemma is "conviction", and the surface form is "conviction".

2.  **Analyze the context**:
    *   The sentence is: "In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the <t>conviction</t> of a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife..."
    *   Key phrases: "Supreme Court overturned", "Dr. Sam Sheppard", "murder of his wife", "ruling", "criminal law context" (implied by court, judge, trial mentioned previously in the text).
    *   The verb "overturned" strongly suggests a legal decision or judgment. You overturn a verdict or a judgment, not usually a "belief".

3.  **Analyze the candidate senses**:
    *   **Sense 1**: "an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence".
        *   Synonyms: strong belief, article of faith.
        *   Does it fit? Could the Supreme Court overturn a "strong belief"? In a metaphorical sense, maybe, but in a legal ruling context regarding a murder trial? No. The text refers to a legal outcome of a trial.
    *   **Sense 2**: "(criminal law) a final judgment of guilty in a criminal case and the punishment that is imposed".
        *   Synonyms: judgment of conviction, condemnation, sentence.
        *   Examples: "the conviction came as no surprise".
        *   Does it fit? Yes. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of guilty against Dr. Sam Sheppard. This matches the legal context perfectly.

4.  **Select the best sense**: Sense 2 fits the context of a court overturning a judgment in a murder trial. Sense 1 refers to a mental state/belief.

5.  **Determine the sense index**:
    *   Sense 1 corresponds to index 1.
    *   Sense 2 corresponds to index 2.

    Therefore, the correct index is 2.

6.  **Format the output**: The user wants a JSON object `{"sense_index": X}`.
    *   Result: `{"sense_index": 2}`.


[System] You are an English linguist performing fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation. WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context, the examples, and the synonyms to choose the best indexed sense. Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense.

[User]
Target lemma: cleveland
Target surface form: Cleveland
Context:
The claim could force appeals judges to grapple with the question of whether new technology requires new courtroom rules. "As I experienced it during this trial, I think there's a real danger that the inclusion of new technology in the courtroom is affecting an individual's fair-trial rights," said Thomas J. Ullmann, Mr. Hayes's chief defense lawyer. The trial judge, Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court, tersely rejected the claims in a ruling last week, saying that the news media were "carefully controlled" and that there was no evidence the jury was driven by passion. But that is not likely to be the last word on the issue. For decades, appeals courts have recognized that coverage of notorious cases can raise questions about a trial's fairness. In a landmark 1966 ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a <t>Cleveland</t> osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard, for the murder of his wife, saying in its decision, Sheppard v. Maxwell, that there was a "carnival atmosphere at trial" because of the news media. The crime is believed by some to have been the inspiration for the television show and the movie "The Fugitive."

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=cleveland%1:15:00:: | definition=the largest city in Ohio; located in northeastern Ohio on Lake Erie; a major Great Lakes port
2. sense_key=cleveland%1:18:00:: | definition=22nd and 24th President of the United States (1837-1908) | synonyms=Grover Cleveland, Stephen Grover Cleveland, President Cleveland

Instructions:
1. Choose the single best indexed sense for the target word in context.
2. WordNet glosses are schematic; use the context, synonyms, and examples together.
3. Do not answer with a WordNet sense key.
4. Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}.

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the target word**: The target lemma is "cleveland" (proper noun). The surface form is "Cleveland".

2.  **Analyze the context**: The sentence mentions "a Cleveland osteopath, Dr. Sam Sheppard". It discusses a "landmark 1966 ruling" by the US Supreme Court overturning his conviction. It mentions the crime inspired "The Fugitive".

3.  **Analyze the candidate senses**:
    *   Sense 1: `cleveland%1:15:00::` -> "the largest city in Ohio; located in northeastern Ohio on Lake Erie; a major Great Lakes port". This refers to a place (a city).
    *   Sense 2: `cleveland%1:18:00::` -> "22nd and 24th President of the United States (1837-1908) | synonyms=Grover Cleveland, Stephen Grover Cleveland, President Cleveland". This refers to a person.

4.  **Disambiguate**:
    *   The phrase is "a Cleveland osteopath".
    *   "Osteopath" is a profession (a type of doctor).
    *   "Cleveland" modifies "osteopath".
    *   Does it mean "an osteopath named Cleveland"? No, Dr. Sam Sheppard is the name. The text says "Dr. Sam Sheppard" is the appositive to "a Cleveland osteopath".
    *   Does it mean "an osteopath from the city of Cleveland"? Yes. Dr. Sam Sheppard was a real person from Bay Village, Ohio (near Cleveland), and the trial is famously known as the Sheppard murder case in Cleveland.
    *   Could it refer to the President? "A President Cleveland osteopath"? No, that makes no sense semantically or syntactically.

5.  **Conclusion**: The word "Cleveland" in this context refers to the city in Ohio. It describes the location where the osteopath practiced or where the case originated.

6.  **Match with Sense Index**:
    *   Sense 1 corresponds to the city.
    *   Sense 2 corresponds to the President.
    *   Therefore, the correct index is 1.

7.  **Format the output**: The user wants a JSON object `{"sense_index": X}` where X is the integer index (1-based).

    *   Selected sense: 1.