[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: seem
Target surface form: seems
Context:
Why ca not we teach our children to read, write and reckon? It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it <t>seems</t> almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=seem%2:39:00:: | definition=give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect | synonyms=look, appear | examples=She seems to be sleeping; This appears to be a very difficult problem
2. sense_key=seem%2:39:01:: | definition=seem to be true, probable, or apparent | synonyms=appear | examples=It seems that he is very gifted; It appears that the weather in California is very bad
3. sense_key=seem%2:42:00:: | definition=appear to exist | examples=There seems no reason to go ahead with the project now
4. sense_key=seem%2:39:02:: | definition=appear to one's own mind or opinion | examples=I seem to be misunderstood by everyone; I can't seem to learn these Chinese characters

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 target word is "seems" in the context: "it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them."

Let me analyze the context:
- "These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them."
- The structure is "it seems [adjective]" - specifically "it seems almost blasphemous"
- This is about how something appears or presents itself - the idea of challenging these beliefs gives the impression of being blasphemous

Let me look at each sense:

1. **sense_key=seem%2:39:00::** - "give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect"
   - Examples: "She seems to be sleeping"; "This appears to be a very difficult problem"
   - This is about outward appearance/impression
   - The structure "it seems almost blasphemous" fits well - giving a certain impression

2. **sense_key=seem%2:39:01::** - "seem to be true, probable, or apparent"
   - Examples: "It seems that he is very gifted"; "It appears that the weather in California is very bad"
   - This typically uses "it seems that..." or "it appears that..." construction
   - Our context doesn't have "that" - it's "it seems almost blasphemous" not "it seems that..."

3. **sense_key=seem%2:42:00::** - "appear to exist"
   - Examples: "There seems no reason to go ahead with the project now"
   - This is for existential constructions like "there seems..."
   - Our context doesn't fit this pattern

4. **sense_key=seem%2:39:02::** - "appear to one's own mind or opinion"
   - Examples: "I seem to be misunderstood by everyone"; "I can't seem to learn these Chinese characters"
   - This is about personal perception/subjective experience
   - Not fitting our context

The best fit is sense 1. The construction "it seems almost blasphemous" is about giving a certain impression - that challenging these beliefs would appear/give the impression of being blasphemous. This aligns with "give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect" and examples like "This appears to be a very difficult problem" (where something appears to have a certain quality/characteristic).

Sense 2 would be more appropriate if the sentence were "It seems that challenging them is blasphemous" - but the actual construction without "that" and with the adjective directly following "seems" points to sense1.

provider: Venice


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: blasphemous
Target surface form: blasphemous
Context:
Why ca not we teach our children to read, write and reckon? It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost <t>blasphemous</t> to challenge them. Here is an example.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=blasphemous%5:00:00:irreverent:00 | definition=grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred | synonyms=profane, sacrilegious | examples=blasphemous rites of a witches' Sabbath; profane utterances against the Church
2. sense_key=blasphemous%5:00:00:dirty:02 | definition=characterized by profanity or cursing | synonyms=blue, profane | examples=foul-mouthed and blasphemous; blue language

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:
Let me analyze the context and the candidate senses to determine the best fit for the word "blasphemous" in this sentence.

The context:
"These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost <t>blasphemous</t> to challenge them."

In this context, the author is discussing how certain beliefs about education are so deeply held and widespread that challenging them feels almost blasphemous. The key point here is that challenging these beliefs is seen as going against something sacred or held in high regard. The author is not talking about using profane language or cursing, but about questioning beliefs that are treated as almost sacred in society.

Let's look at the two senses:

Sense 1: "grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred"
- Synonyms: profane, sacrilegious
- Examples: "blasphemous rites of a witches' Sabbath", "profane utterances against the Church"

Sense 2: "characterized by profanity or cursing"
- Synonyms: blue, profane
- Examples: "foul-mouthed and blasphemous", "blue language"

Based on the context, Sense 1 fits better because:
1. The author is talking about challenging beliefs that are held to be almost sacred, not about using profane language.
2. The act of challenging these dominant beliefs would be seen as irreverent toward what is held sacred.
3. There's no indication in the context of using curse words or profane language.

Sense 2 is about using profanity or cursing in language, which doesn't fit the context. The author is not talking about using bad language but about the act of questioning established beliefs.

Therefore, the best sense for "blasphemous" in this context is Sense 1: "grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred".

format: unknown

native_finish_reason: stop

provider: Chutes

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: challenge
Target surface form: challenge
Context:
Why ca not we teach our children to read, write and reckon? It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to <t>challenge</t> them. Here is an example.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=challenge%2:32:01:: | definition=take exception to | synonyms=dispute, gainsay | examples=She challenged his claims
2. sense_key=challenge%2:32:00:: | definition=issue a challenge to | examples=Fischer challenged Spassky to a match
3. sense_key=challenge%2:32:03:: | definition=ask for identification | examples=The illegal immigrant was challenged by the border guard
4. sense_key=challenge%2:32:02:: | definition=raise a formal objection in a court of law | synonyms=take exception

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:**
    *   Sentence: "These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to <t>challenge</t> them."
    *   Subject: "it" (dummy subject) / "to challenge them" (real subject). The agent is implied (one/anyone).
    *   Object: "them" referring to "cherished metaphysical beliefs" and "cherished vested interests".
    *   Semantic meaning: The beliefs are so dominant that questioning or opposing them is seen as blasphemous. The author is talking about intellectual dissent or questioning established dogmas.

2.  **Analyze the candidate senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `challenge%2:32:01::` | Definition: "take exception to" | Synonyms: "dispute, gainsay" | Examples: "She challenged his claims".
        *   *Analysis:* This sense fits well. "Taking exception to" beliefs or "disputing" them matches the idea that it is "blasphemous" to go against the dominant ideology. The object "beliefs" aligns perfectly with "claims" in the example.

    *   **Sense 2:** `challenge%2:32:00::` | Definition: "issue a challenge to" | Examples: "Fischer challenged Spassky to a match".
        *   *Analysis:* This sense usually implies a contest, competition, or a call to fight (like a duel or game). While one can "challenge beliefs," sense 1 captures the *disagreement* or *disputation* aspect better than sense 2, which feels more like a summon to a specific contest.

    *   **Sense 3:** `challenge%2:32:03::` | Definition: "ask for identification" | Examples: "The illegal immigrant was challenged by the border guard".
        *   *Analysis:* This is specific to security or border contexts. Not applicable here.

    *   **Sense 4:** `challenge%2:32:02::` | Definition: "raise a formal objection in a court of law" | Synonyms: "take exception".
        *   *Analysis:* This is a legal technical term. The context is education and sociology, not a courtroom.

3.  **Compare Sense 1 and Sense 2:**
    *   Sense 1 ("take exception to", "dispute") is the general verb meaning to question the validity or truth of something.
    *   Sense 2 ("issue a challenge to") often implies provoking a contest or inviting a struggle.
    *   In the context "blasphemous to challenge them [beliefs]", the meaning is to question, dispute, or express dissent against those beliefs. It's an intellectual opposition.
    *   Example for Sense 1: "She challenged his claims." This is structurally and semantically very close to "challenge [beliefs]".
    *   Therefore, Sense 1 is the best fit.

4.  **Format Output:**
    *   The user requested a JSON object `{"sense_index": X}`.
    *   The chosen sense is the first one listed.
    *   Index: 1.

5.  **Final Check:**
    *   Target: challenge.
    *   Context: "blasphemous to challenge them [beliefs]".
    *   Sense 1: take exception to, dispute. Fits perfectly.
    *   Output: `{"sense_index": 1}`.

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: here
Target surface form: Here
Context:
Why ca not we teach our children to read, write and reckon? It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. <t>Here</t> is an example. If I were to ask a sample of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=here%4:02:00:: | definition=in or at this place; where the speaker or writer is | examples=I work here; turn here
2. sense_key=here%4:02:02:: | definition=in this circumstance or respect or on this point or detail | examples=what do we have here?; here I must disagree
3. sense_key=here%4:02:01:: | definition=to this place (especially toward the speaker) | synonyms=hither | examples=come here, please
4. sense_key=here%4:02:04:: | definition=at this time; now | examples=we'll adjourn here for lunch and discuss the remaining issues this afternoon

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 disambiguate the word "Here" in a specific context.
The target sentence is: "<t>Here</t> is an example."
The broader context discusses educational beliefs and provides an example to illustrate the point.

Let's examine the candidate senses:
1.  **Sense 1**: "in or at this place; where the speaker or writer is".
    *   Examples: "I work here", "turn here".
    *   Context fit: "In this place is an example"? While possible metaphorically (the text is a place), it's usually used for physical location. In text, "here" often refers to the text itself, but usually, this sense is distinct from introducing an example in the discourse structure.

2.  **Sense 2**: "in this circumstance or respect or on this point or detail".
    *   Examples: "what do we have here?", "here I must disagree".
    *   Context fit: The speaker has just made a point about beliefs dominating educational establishments. The sentence "Here is an example" follows this argument. It functions as a discourse marker introducing an illustration of the point just made. "In this respect/context/circumstance, I provide an example." This fits well. It refers to the discourse context, not a physical location.

3.  **Sense 3**: "to this place (especially toward the speaker)".
    *   Synonyms: hither.
    *   Examples: "come here, please".
    *   Context fit: Motion towards. "Here is an example" is not about motion towards the speaker. "Is" suggests existence/state, not motion.

4.  **Sense 4**: "at this time; now".
    *   Examples: "we'll adjourn here for lunch...".
    *   Context fit: "At this time is an example"? No, that doesn't make sense. It's not a temporal reference.

Comparison between Sense 1 and Sense 2:
*   Sense 1 implies spatial location. While text can be seen as a "space", Sense 2 specifically covers "in this circumstance/respect" or abstract reference points within a discourse. The phrase "Here is an example" acts as a presentation of an illustrative instance of the previous argument.
*   WordNet Sense 2 definition "in this circumstance or respect or on this point or detail" aligns with the abstract discourse function of pointing to the immediate context (the argument just made) to introduce the example.
*   Example from Sense 2: "here I must disagree". This shows "here" used to structure the flow of an argument/idea. "Here is an example" is structurally similar: "On this point [that I just made], I give an example."

Let's check the mapping.
Sentence: "Here is an example."
Is it physical place? No.
Is it motion? No.
Is it time? No.
Is it circumstance/point in discourse? Yes. The speaker is setting up an example regarding the point just discussed.

Therefore, Sense 2 is the correct choice.

Sense Index:
Sense 1 -> index 1
Sense 2 -> index 2
Sense 3 -> index 3
Sense 4 -> index 4

I need to return index2.


[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: example
Target surface form: example
Context:
Why ca not we teach our children to read, write and reckon? It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an <t>example</t>. If I were to ask a sample of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=example%1:09:00:: | definition=an item of information that is typical of a class or group | synonyms=illustration, instance, representative | examples=this patient provides a typical example of the syndrome; there is an example on page 10
2. sense_key=example%1:09:02:: | definition=a representative form or pattern | synonyms=model | examples=I profited from his example
3. sense_key=example%1:09:01:: | definition=something to be imitated | synonyms=exemplar, model, good example | examples=an exemplar of success; a model of clarity
4. sense_key=example%1:10:00:: | definition=punishment intended as a warning to others | synonyms=deterrent example, lesson, object lesson | examples=they decided to make an example of him
5. sense_key=example%1:11:00:: | definition=an occurrence of something | synonyms=case, instance | examples=it was a case of bad judgment; another instance occurred yesterday
6. sense_key=example%1:04:00:: | definition=a task performed or problem solved in order to develop skill or understanding | synonyms=exercise | examples=you must work the examples at the end of each chapter in the textbook

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 Context:** The text discusses the failure of the educational system due to reluctance to challenge metaphysical beliefs. The author introduces a specific scenario to illustrate this point: asking American parents about encouraging creativity.
    *   Sentence: "Here is an <t>example</t>."
    *   Following text: "If I were to ask a sample of American parents..."
    *   Function: The word "example" introduces a specific instance or scenario that illustrates the general point made in the previous sentences (about beliefs dominating the establishment). It serves as an illustration or a concrete case to prove or clarify the general statement.

2.  **Analyze the Candidate Senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `example%1:09:00::` | Definition: an item of information that is typical of a class or group. Synonyms: illustration, instance, representative. Examples: "this patient provides a typical example of the syndrome".
        *   *Fit:* This sense refers to a specific instance used to illustrate a general principle or claim. In the text, the author is making a general claim about beliefs dominating the establishment. The hypothetical question to parents is an "item of information" (a scenario) typical of this phenomenon (illustrating the dominance of specific beliefs). It functions as an *illustration*. This seems very strong.

    *   **Sense 2:** `example%1:09:02::` | Definition: a representative form or pattern. Synonyms: model. Examples: "I profited from his example".
        *   *Fit:* This usually implies a pattern of behavior or a model to follow/learn from. The context isn't about following a pattern but about providing a specific case to prove a point.

    *   **Sense 3:** `example%1:09:01::` | Definition: something to be imitated. Synonyms: exemplar, model, good example. Examples: "an exemplar of success".
        *   *Fit:* This is about positive role models (e.g., "lead by example"). The context is not about imitation or being a role model.

    *   **Sense 4:** `example%1:10:00::` | Definition: punishment intended as a warning to others. Synonyms: deterrent example, lesson, object lesson. Examples: "they decided to make an example of him".
        *   *Fit:* This is legal or disciplinary context. Not applicable here.

    *   **Sense 5:** `example%1:11:00::` | Definition=an occurrence of something. Synonyms: case, instance. Examples: "it was a case of bad judgment".
        *   *Fit:* This refers to an actual occurrence or event (e.g., "an instance of something"). The author is presenting a hypothetical scenario ("If I were to ask..."). While similar to Sense 1, Sense 1 emphasizes the illustrative function ("item of information that is typical..."), whereas Sense 5 emphasizes the occurrence/existence ("an occurrence of something"). The text says "Here is an example" followed by a hypothetical illustration. The purpose is to illustrate the author's argument. Sense 1's synonyms "illustration" and "instance" fit well, but the specific nuance of "typical of a class or group" or "item of information" used to illustrate fits the rhetorical move "Here is an example" perfectly. Let's compare Sense 1 and Sense 5 carefully.
        *   Sense 1 (illustration, instance): Focuses on the representative nature of the item for a group. The hypothetical question is a representative case illustrating the general attitude.
        *   Sense 5 (case, instance): Focuses on a specific occurrence.
        *   In standard WSD (WordNet), "Here is an example" introducing a hypothetical scenario usually aligns with the "illustration/instance" sense (Sense 1) rather than just an "occurrence" (Sense 5), because the scenario is constructed *as* an illustration of the class of situations described previously. The definition "item of information that is typical of a class or group" matches the logic: the parent situation is an item of information typical of the class "beliefs dominating the establishment".

    *   **Sense 6:** `example%1:04:00::` | Definition: a task performed or problem solved in order to develop skill.
        *   *Fit:* This is for textbooks/math. Not applicable.

3.  **Differentiating Sense 1 and Sense 5:**
    *   Sense 1: "an item of information that is typical of a class or group". Synonyms: *illustration, instance*.
    *   Sense 5: "an occurrence of something". Synonyms: *case, instance*.
    *   Context: The author says "Here is an example" and then provides a hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point.
    *   The scenario isn't necessarily an "occurrence" (something that actually happened, Sense 5) - it's hypothetical ("If I were to ask..."). It is an "illustration" (Sense 1). The synonym "illustration" in Sense 1 is the key. The author is illustrating the abstract concept mentioned in the previous sentence.
    *   Therefore, Sense 1 is the correct choice. It captures the function of the text segment as an illustrative instance.

4.  **Final Selection:** Sense 1.

    *   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: ask
Target surface form: ask
Context:
It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to <t>ask</t> a sample of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we mean, specifically, by "creativity "?

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=ask%2:32:00:: | definition=inquire about | synonyms=inquire, enquire | examples=I asked about their special today; He had to ask directions several times
2. sense_key=ask%2:32:01:: | definition=make a request or demand for something to somebody | examples=She asked him for a loan
3. sense_key=ask%2:32:02:: | definition=direct or put; seek an answer to | examples=ask a question
4. sense_key=ask%2:32:05:: | definition=consider obligatory; request and expect | synonyms=require, expect | examples=We require our secretary to be on time; Aren't we asking too much of these children?
5. sense_key=ask%2:32:04:: | definition=address a question to and expect an answer from | examples=Ask your teacher about trigonometry; The children asked me about their dead grandmother
6. sense_key=ask%2:42:00:: | definition=require as useful, just, or proper | synonyms=necessitate, postulate, need, require, take, involve | examples=It takes nerve to do what she did; success usually requires hard work
7. sense_key=ask%2:32:09:: | definition=require or ask for as a price or condition | examples=He is asking $200 for the table; The kidnappers are asking a million dollars in return for the release of their hostage

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": 5}
```

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 5}
```

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the Context:**
    *   Sentence: "If I were to ask a sample of American parents, 'Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children?'..."
    *   Target: "ask"
    *   Situation: The speaker is hypothetically posing a specific question ("Do you wish...?") to a specific group (a sample of American parents) and expecting an answer.
    *   Syntactic frame: "ask [recipient] [quoted question]"

2.  **Analyze the Candidate Senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `ask%2:32:00::` | definition="inquire about" | synonyms=inquire, enquire | examples="I asked about their special today..."
        *   *Analysis:* This usually implies asking *about* a topic rather than posing a direct, fully formed question. The context involves a specific direct quotation. "Ask a sample of parents 'Do you wish...'" fits better with addressing a question to someone than just inquiring about a topic.

    *   **Sense 2:** `ask%2:32:01::` | definition="make a request or demand for something to somebody" | examples="She asked him for a loan"
        *   *Analysis:* This implies asking for an object or service (requesting). The context is asking for information/an opinion via a question, not asking for a loan or object.

    *   **Sense 3:** `ask%2:32:02::` | definition="direct or put; seek an answer to" | examples="ask a question"
        *   *Analysis:* This focuses on the act of putting the question itself ("ask a question"). The context shows the speaker putting a question. This is a strong contender, but let's check Sense 5 which adds the recipient element.

    *   **Sense 4:** `ask%2:32:05::` | definition="consider obligatory; request and expect" | synonyms=require, expect | examples="Aren't we asking too much...?"
        *   *Analysis:* This is the "demand/expect" sense. Not the case here. The speaker is querying, not demanding action/obligation in the sense of "asking someone to do something" as a burden.

    *   **Sense 5:** `ask%2:32:04::` | definition="address a question to and expect an answer from" | examples="Ask your teacher about trigonometry; The children asked me about their dead grandmother"
        *   *Analysis:* This sense explicitly captures the transitive structure "ask [recipient] [question/topic]". The text says "ask a sample of American parents". The speaker addresses the question to the parents. The example "Ask your teacher..." aligns well with "Ask a sample of parents...". This sense emphasizes the interaction between the asker and the askee (the recipient). Sense 3 focuses on the object ("ask a question"), while Sense 5 focuses on the recipient ("ask [someone]"). In the sentence "If I were to ask a sample of American parents...", the direct object is the *recipient* (the parents), and the question is the second object (in quotation marks). Sense 5 fits the "address a question to [someone]" structure perfectly.

    *   **Sense 6:** `ask%2:42:00::` | definition="require as useful, just, or proper" | synonyms=necessitate...
        *   *Analysis:* This is the "entail/require" sense (e.g., "This job asks a lot of patience"). Not applicable.

    *   **Sense 7:** `ask%2:32:09::` | definition="require or ask for as a price or condition"
        *   *Analysis:* This is the "set a price" sense. Not applicable.

3.  **Compare Sense 1, 3, and 5:**

    *   Context: "ask a sample of American parents, 'Do you wish...?'"
    *   Sense 1 ("inquire about"): Usually intransitive or transitive with topic ("ask about X"). Here, the object is the person ("parents"). "I asked the parents about creativity" would fit Sense 1 (perhaps). But the structure "Ask [person] [question]" is specifically Sense 5 in many WordNet hierarchies or Sense 3 depending on focus.
    *   Sense 3 ("direct or put"): Example "ask a question". In the text, the speaker is doing this, but the syntax highlights the recipient.
    *   Sense 5 ("address a question to and expect an answer from"): Examples "Ask your teacher about trigonometry". The text says "ask a sample of American parents". The direct object is the *recipient*. This aligns perfectly with Sense 5. The definition "address a question to" matches the act of directing the question to the "sample of American parents".

    Let's look at the mapping in WordNet 3.0/3.1 specifically.
    *   Sense 1 (inquire about): usually "ask about [topic]".
    *   Sense 5 (address a question to): "ask [person]". The definition "address a question to and expect an answer from" is the most precise fit for "ask [recipient]".

    Let's re-read Sense 3. "direct or put; seek an answer to". Example: "ask a question".
    Let's re-read Sense 5. "address a question to and expect an answer from". Example: "Ask your teacher about trigonometry".

    In the sentence "If I were to ask a sample of American parents...", the direct object is "a sample of American parents".
    Therefore, the sense must handle a human/animate recipient as the direct object.
    Sense 5 fits this best ("address a question to...").

    Sense 1 (inquire about) usually takes a topic as the object (ask the time, ask the price) or is intransitive/intransitive with preposition (ask about).
    Sense 3 (direct or put) usually takes "question" as the object ("ask a question").
    Sense 5 takes the *person* as the object ("ask your teacher"). This matches the context's syntax exactly.

4.  **Final Decision:**
    The target sentence is "ask a sample of American parents".
    The object is the person (parents).
    Sense 5 definition: "address a question to and expect an answer from".
    Sense 5 examples: "Ask your teacher..."
    This is the exact match.

    Resulting index: 5.


[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: sample
Target surface form: sample
Context:
It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to ask a <t>sample</t> of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we mean, specifically, by "creativity "?

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=sample%1:09:00:: | definition=a small part of something intended as representative of the whole
2. sense_key=sample%1:09:01:: | definition=items selected at random from a population and used to test hypotheses about the population | synonyms=sample distribution, sampling
3. sense_key=sample%1:17:00:: | definition=all or part of a natural object that is collected and preserved as an example of its class

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 Target**: The target word is "sample" (noun). The context sentence is: "If I were to ask a **sample** of American parents, 'Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children?' the near-unanimous answer would be, 'Yes, of course.'"

2.  **Analyze the Senses**:
    *   Sense 1 (sample%1:09:00::): "a small part of something intended as representative of the whole". This is the general definition of a sample.
    *   Sense 2 (sample%1:09:01::): "items selected at random from a population and used to test hypotheses about the population". Synonyms: sample distribution, sampling. This leans towards statistical/scientific sampling.
    *   Sense 3 (sample%1:17:00::): "all or part of a natural object that is collected and preserved as an example of its class". This refers to biological specimens or geological samples.

3.  **Evaluate Context**:
    *   The text talks about asking a "sample of American parents".
    *   This implies a subset of the population (American parents) used to represent the whole population.
    *   The author is using a hypothetical scenario ("If I were to ask...") to illustrate a point about beliefs.
    *   Is it a rigorous statistical sample (Sense 2) or a general representative subset (Sense 1)?
    *   Sense 2 mentions "items selected at random... used to test hypotheses". While polling often uses random sampling, the context here is rhetorical/general illustrative. The author is asking "If I were to ask a sample...", implying a general group of parents taken to represent the whole. It doesn't explicitly mention the statistical methodology (random selection, hypothesis testing) associated with the strict definition of Sense 2, though it is related.
    *   However, Sense 1 is broader: "a small part of something intended as representative of the whole". This fits the general usage in non-technical or semi-technical contexts perfectly. The parents asked are a small part of the whole group of parents, meant to represent the views of the whole.
    *   Sense 3 is clearly wrong (biological specimen).

4.  **Distinguish Sense 1 vs. Sense 2**:
    *   WordNet often distinguishes between the general concept (Sense 1) and the specific statistical artifact (Sense 2).
    *   In this context, "a sample of American parents" is a subset representing the whole.
    *   Is "sample of American parents" closer to the statistical "sample distribution" (Sense 2) or the general "representative part" (Sense 1)?
    *   Usually, when talking about people/populations in survey contexts, Sense 1 is the hypernym, but Sense 2 is often applied if the context implies a statistical study.
    *   Let's look at the examples provided by WordNet for these senses usually (though I don't have the full WordNet database examples here, I know the schema).
        *   Sense 1 usually covers things like "show me a sample of your work", "a sample of what is available".
        *   Sense 2 usually covers "statistical sample", "random sample".
    *   The context here is: "If I were to ask a sample of American parents..."
    *   The intent is representative. It's a rhetorical example. "Here is an example. If I were to ask a sample..."
    *   This feels more like the general definition (Sense 1) because it highlights the representative nature ("near-unanimous answer") rather than the statistical procedure of hypothesis testing. The author isn't setting up a scientific experiment to test a null hypothesis; they are illustrating a point about what parents believe.
    *   However, many linguistic WSD systems map "sample of [population group]" to the statistical sense (Sense 2) because it refers to a population. Let's re-read the gloss for Sense 2 carefully: "items selected at random from a population and used to test hypotheses about the population". The text does not mention random selection or hypothesis testing explicitly. It's a hypothetical question to make a point.
    *   Let's re-read the gloss for Sense 1: "a small part of something intended as representative of the whole". This fits perfectly. The group of parents is a small part intended to represent all parents.

    *   Let's consider if Sense 2 is the "technical" sense. If the sentence was "We took a random sample of 500 parents to test the hypothesis...", Sense 2 would be indisputable. Here, it's "If I were to ask a sample...". It refers to the group of people.
    *   In many corpora, the distinction is fine. Sense 1 is often used for physical samples (fabric, food) or abstract samples (work). Sense 2 is for statistics.
    *   Does the context invoke statistics? It talks about "American parents" as a population. It talks about a "near-unanimous answer". This implies a survey methodology.
    *   However, the *function* in the text is illustrative. The "sample" represents the "whole".
    *   Let's check if Sense 2 is restricted to "items". The gloss says "items". Parents are people. Sense 1 gloss says "a small part of something". Parents are a small part of the population.
    *   Often, WordNet Sense 1 is the "default" or most common sense.
    *   Let's look at the specificity. Sense 2 is a hyponym of Sense 1 (in many ontology structures, though in WordNet 3.0/3.1 they are often distinct synsets in the lexicographer file, sometimes with overlap). Actually, in WordNet 3.0, `sample%1:09:00::` is a hypernym of `sample%1:09:01::`?
    *   Let's check the hierarchy. Sense 2 (`sample%1:09:01::`) is often defined via Sense 1 concepts.
    *   If the context is "If I were to ask a sample...", it treats "sample" as a collective noun for the group.
    *   If I have to choose the *best* fit:
        *   Sense 1: "representative of the whole".
        *   Sense 2: "selected at random... used to test hypotheses".
    *   The text says "If I were to ask...". It doesn't say "randomly selected". It doesn't say "test hypotheses". It implies asking a group representing the whole to demonstrate a point (an example).
    *   Therefore, Sense 1 is the better fit. It covers the functional aspect (representation) without forcing the technical statistical constraints (randomness, hypothesis testing) that are not explicitly present in the rhetorical context.

    *   Wait, let me double-check the "sample of people" convention in WSD tasks.
        *   Usually, "sample of blood/water" -> Sense 3 (specimen) or Sense 1.
        *   "Sample of work" -> Sense 1.
        *   "Sample of the population" -> This is the classic definition of statistics.
        *   Is it Sense 2? The synonyms are "sample distribution, sampling". These are statistical terms.
        *   However, the prompt says "WordNet glosses are schematic. Use the sentence context... Do not hedge."
        *   Context: The author is challenging educational beliefs. They posit a hypothetical survey.
        *   "If I were to ask a sample..."
        *   Is this "a small part intended as representative"? Yes.
        *   Is this "items selected at random... to test hypotheses"? Not necessarily random, and the goal is not a hypothesis test but an illustrative question.
        *   Therefore, Sense 1 seems safer and more accurate to the *rhetorical* usage here. Sense 2 implies a specific scientific procedure ("random", "test hypotheses") which is absent from the context. The author is making a point about "creativity" and "parental desire", not publishing a statistical study.

    *   Let's look at Sense 3 again. "Natural object... preserved". Definitely not.

    *   Decision: Sense 1. It captures the core meaning (representative part) without the unwarranted specifics of statistical hypothesis testing found in Sense 2.

    *   *Self-Correction/Refinement*: Some WSD annotators might tag any "sample of population" as Sense 2 (Statistical). Let's look at the gloss of Sense 2 again. "items selected at random...". If the text doesn't support randomness, Sense 2 is technically wrong based on the gloss. Sense 1 is "intended as representative". The text strongly supports the "representative" aspect ("answer would be... yes").
    *   Also, "sample distribution" (synonym for Sense 2) is a specific statistical outcome. "Sampling" is the process.
    *   The target is "a sample of American parents". This is a subset.
    *   I will stick with Sense 1 because the constraints of Sense 2 (randomness, hypothesis testing) are not met in this hypothetical, rhetorical context.

    *   Let's verify the indices.
    *   Index 1 corresponds to sense_key=sample%1:09:00:: (Representative part).
    *   Index 2 corresponds to sense_key=sample%1:09:01:: (Statistical sample).
    *   Index 3 corresponds to sense_key=sample%1:17:00:: (Specimen).

    *   I am choosing Index 1.

    Let's double check the specific wording "sample of American parents".
    Merriam-Webster definition of sample: "a representative part or a single item from a larger whole or group especially when presented for inspection or shown as evidence of quality : SPECIMEN". This aligns with Sense 1.
    WordNet Sense 1 aligns with "representative of the whole".
    WordNet Sense 2 aligns with "random / test hypotheses".
    Since the context is a rhetorical example ("Here is an example"), Sense 1 is the correct choice.

    Final check:
    Context: "If I were to ask a sample of American parents..."
    Gloss 1: "a small part of something intended as representative of the whole" -> Matches.
    Gloss 2: "items selected at random... used to test hypotheses" -> Does not match (hypothetical, illustrative, not necessarily random, not hypothesis testing).
    Gloss 3: "natural object... preserved" -> Does not match.

    Result: Index 1.

provider: Friendli


[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: american
Target surface form: American
Context:
It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to ask a sample of <t>American</t> parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we mean, specifically, by "creativity "?

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=american%3:01:01:: | definition=of or relating to the United States of America or its people or language or culture | examples=American citizens; American English
2. sense_key=american%3:01:00:: | definition=of or relating to or characteristic of the continents and islands of the Americas | examples=the American hemisphere; American flora and fauna

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.  "American", functioning as an adjective modifying "parents" in the phrase "American parents".

2.  **Analyze the Context:**
    *   The text discusses education, parents, and metaphysical beliefs within an "educational establishment".
    *   The phrase is: "If I were to ask a sample of American parents..."
    *   The author talks about "our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents".
    *   The context implies a specific national context usually associated with Western educational discourse, Senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `american%3:01:01::` | Definition: "of or relating to the United States of America or its people or language or culture". Examples: "American citizens", "American English".
        *   This sense refers specifically to the United States. When people say "American parents" in English, they overwhelmingly mean parents from the US. The context of an English text that dominates "our media" and "our politicians" strongly points to a nation-state context. The US is the most common referent for "American" in this context.

    *   **Sense 2:** `american%3:01:00::` | Definition: "of or relating to or characteristic of the continents and islands of the Americas". Examples: "the American hemisphere", "American flora and fauna".
        *   This sense refers to the continents (North and South America). People rarely refer to "American parents" to mean parents from across the entire Western Hemisphere (including Canada, Brazil, Argentina, etc.). The phrase "American parents" is idiomatic for parents from the USA.

4.  **Compare and Select:**
    *   The phrase "American parents" fits Sense 1 perfectly (parents who are citizens or residents of the USA).
    *   It fits Sense 2 very poorly. It is unlikely the author is referring to parents from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, etc., collectively.
    *   Therefore, Sense 1 is the correct choice.

5.  **Format Output:**
    *   The user wants a JSON object `{"sense_index": X}` where X is the index (1 or 2).
    *   The best sense is 1.

    Result: `{"sense_index": 1}`

provider: Amazon Bedrock


[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: parent
Target surface form: parents
Context:
It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to ask a sample of American <t>parents</t>, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we mean, specifically, by "creativity "?

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=parent%1:18:00:: | definition=a father or mother; one who begets or one who gives birth to or nurtures and raises a child; a relative who plays the role of guardian
2. sense_key=parent%1:03:00:: | definition=an organism (plant or animal) from which younger ones are obtained

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: `parent`.
    *   Target surface form: `parents`.
    *   Context: A text discussing educational beliefs and asking a sample of American parents about creativity in schools.
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `parent%1:18:00::` (father/mother/guardian).
        2.  `parent%1:03:00::` (organism producing offspring).
    *   Constraint: Choose the single best indexed sense.
    *   Output format: JSON object `{"sense_index": N}` (where N is the index number, starting from 1 based on the list provided).

2.  **Analyze the Context:**
    *   "If I were to ask a sample of American <t>parents</t>, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children?"
    *   Keywords: "American", "elementary schools", "your children".
    *   The context describes human beings who have children attending school. They are being surveyed about educational preferences.

3.  **Analyze the Senses:**
    *   Sense 1: "a father or mother; one who begets or one who gives birth to or nurtures and raises a child; a relative who plays the role of guardian." This is the standard definition for human parents.
    *   Sense 2: "an organism (plant or animal) from which younger ones are obtained." This is the biological/generic sense, often used for plants or non-human animals (e.g., "the parent cell").

4.  **Compare Context and Senses:**
    *   The text refers to "American parents" and their "children" in the context of "elementary schools". This clearly points to human social roles and relationships.
    *   Sense 1 fits perfectly: these are human fathers and mothers or guardians.
    *   Sense 2 is inappropriate because the context is about human education and social interaction, not biological lineage in a generic organism sense (though humans are organisms, the specific usage "American parents" invokes the social role defined in Sense 1).

5.  **Determine the Index:**
    *   Sense 1 is the correct choice.
    *   The index corresponds to the position in the list provided (1 or 2).
    *   Since Sense 1 is the correct definition, the index is 1.

6.  **Formulate Output:**
    *   The instruction asks for `{"sense_index": N}`.
    *   N = 1.

provider: AtlasCloud


[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: encourage
Target surface form: encourage
Context:
It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to ask a sample of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to <t>encourage</t> creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we mean, specifically, by "creativity "?

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=encourage%2:41:00:: | definition=contribute to the progress or growth of | synonyms=promote, advance, boost, further | examples=I am promoting the use of computers in the classroom
2. sense_key=encourage%2:37:00:: | definition=inspire with confidence; give hope or courage to
3. sense_key=encourage%2:32:00:: | definition=spur on | examples=His financial success encouraged him to look for a wife

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 target word is "encourage" in the context: "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children?"

Let me analyze the context:
- The sentence is asking if parents want schools to "encourage creativity" in children
- This is about schools fostering or promoting the development of creativity
- The context is about educational practices and what schools should do

Let me look at the candidate senses:

1. sense_key=encourage%2:41:00:: | definition=contribute to the progress or growth of | synonyms=promote, advance, boost, further | examples=I am promoting the use of computers in the classroom

2. sense_key=encourage%2:37:00:: | definition=inspire with confidence; give hope or courage to

3. sense_key=encourage%2:32:00:: | definition=spur on | examples=His financial success encouraged him to look for a wife

Analysis:
- Sense 1 is about contributing to the progress or growth of something, with synonyms like "promote, advance, boost, further". The example is about "promoting the use of computers in the classroom" which is very similar to our context about schools encouraging creativity. This fits well - schools would be contributing to the growth/development of creativity in children.

- Sense 2 is about inspiring with confidence, giving hope or courage. This doesn't fit as well because we're not talking about giving children courage or confidence about creativity - we're talking about fostering/developing creativity itself.

- Sense 3 is about spurring on, with an example about financial success encouraging someone to look for a wife. This is more about motivating someone to take action, not about developing a quality/skill like creativity.

The context is clearly about whether schools should foster, promote, or contribute to the development of creativity in children. This aligns best with sense 1, which is about contributing to the progress or growth of something. The example given for sense 1 ("promoting the use of computers in the classroom") is also very similar in structure to our context about schools encouraging creativity.

So the answer is 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: child
Target surface form: children
Context:
It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to ask a sample of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your <t>children</t>? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we mean, specifically, by "creativity "?

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=child%1:18:00:: | definition=a young person of either sex | synonyms=kid, youngster, minor, shaver, nipper, small fry | examples=she writes books for children; they're just kids
2. sense_key=child%1:18:01:: | definition=a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age | synonyms=kid | examples=they had three children; they were able to send their kids to college
3. sense_key=child%1:18:06:: | definition=an immature childish person | synonyms=baby | examples=he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived; stop being a baby!
4. sense_key=child%1:18:07:: | definition=a member of a clan or tribe | examples=the children of Israel

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 lemma and surface form:**
    *   Lemma: "child"
    *   Surface form: "children" (plural)

2.  **Analyze the context:**
    *   Text segment: "...If I were to ask a sample of American parents, 'Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your **children**?'..."
    *   Key phrases: "American parents", "elementary schools", "encourage creativity", "your children".
    *   The context is about education, specifically elementary schools. The subjects are the offspring of the parents being asked.
    *   The relationship is explicitly "American parents" -> "your children".

3.  **Analyze the candidate senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `child%1:18:00::`
        *   Definition: a young person of either sex
        *   Synonyms: kid, youngster, minor, shaver, nipper, small fry
        *   Examples: "she writes books for children"; "they're just kids"
        *   Analysis: This sense focuses on "young person". Since the context mentions "elementary schools", the children are definitely young. This is a strong candidate. It emphasizes the developmental stage/age.

    *   **Sense 2:** `child%1:18:01::`
        *   Definition: a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age
        *   Synonyms: kid
        *   Examples: "they had three children"; "they were able to send their kids to college"
        *   Analysis: This sense focuses on the kinship relationship (offspring) regardless of age ("of any age"). The context involves "parents" addressing "your children". The possessive "your" strongly implies the offspring relationship. However, does the distinction between Sense 1 (young person) and Sense 2 (offspring of any age) matter here? In WordNet, Sense 1 is about the developmental stage, Sense 2 is about the lineage. The phrase "elementary schools" narrows the scope to young people, but the relationship "your children" is inherently the offspring relation.

    *   **Sense 3:** `child%1:18:06::`
        *   Definition: an immature childish person
        *   Synonyms: baby
        *   Examples: "he remained a child in practical matters..."
        *   Analysis: This refers to behavior/immaturity, not necessarily literal age or offspring status in a neutral way. Context is about students in elementary school. Not the best fit.

    *   **Sense 4:** `child%1:18:07::`
        *   Definition: a member of a clan or tribe
        *   Examples: "the children of Israel"
        *   Analysis: Figurative/tribal usage. Not applicable.

4.  **Compare Sense 1 and Sense 2:**
    *   This is a classic WSD problem for the word "child".
    *   Context cues: "American parents", "elementary schools".
    *   "Parents" refers to the progenitors. "Your children" refers to their offspring. This aligns with Sense 2.
    *   "Elementary schools" refers to the age group (young). This aligns with Sense 1.
    *   Which sense dominates?
    *   Let's look at the definitions again.
        *   Sense 1: "a young person..."
        *   Sense 2: "a human offspring... of any age"
    *   In common usage, "children" in the context of "parents" implies the relationship (Sense 2), but "children" in the context of "schools" implies the age group (Sense 1).
    *   Often, these overlap. However, WordNet distinguishes them.
    *   If I say "I have two children", I am using Sense 2 (offspring). They could be 30 years old.
    *   If I say "The playground is for children", I am using Sense 1 (young people).
    *   The sentence combines both: "parents ... your children ... elementary schools".
    *   Let's look at the wording: "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children?"
    *   The schools are dealing with them as students (young people). The parents are dealing with them as offspring.
    *   Usually, when "children" is modified by "your" and possessed by "parents", it is primarily referencing the offspring relationship. However, the constraint of "elementary schools" imposes the "young" aspect.
    *   Let's check the examples in WordNet.
        *   Sense 1 examples: "she writes books for children" (age/activity focus).
        *   Sense 2 examples: "they had three children" (offspring focus).
    *   The context here asks parents about their specific offspring. But the *topic* is education.
    *   However, if the word "children" is used to describe the attendees of elementary school, is it Sense 1 or Sense 2?
    *   If I say "My children are in elementary school", I am defining them as offspring. If the sentence were "The children in the classroom are noisy", that would be Sense 1 (young people).
    *   The phrase is "your children". The possessive "your" strongly ties to the definition "human offspring".
    *   Let's consider the nuances. Is a 10-year-old referred to as a "child" primarily because they are young (Sense 1) or because they are someone's offspring (Sense 2)?
    *   Actually, usually Sense 1 (young person) is the default for the plural "children" when discussing the demographic, while Sense 2 is the specific relationship.
    *   Let's look at the sentence again. "If I were to ask a sample of American parents... encourage creativity in your children".
    *   The parents are the interlocutors. The children are the recipients of the action.
    *   Standard WSD practice often defaults to the "young person" sense (Sense 1) when the context emphasizes age/school/immaturity, and "offspring" (Sense 2) when emphasizing lineage/possession ("their children").
    *   Here we have "your children". The "your" anchors the offspring definition.
    *   However, often Sense 1 (young person) covers the general category.
    *   Let's try to differentiate strict WordNet usage.
    *   Sense 1 Hyponyms: "female child", "male child". Synonyms: "kid", "youngster". This is the "young human" sense.
    *   Sense 2 Synonyms: "kid". Definition includes "of any age".
    *   If the text says "elementary schools", the children *must* be young. Therefore, they fit Sense 1 criteria (young person).
    *   Does the context exclude Sense 2? No, they are definitely offspring.
    *   Does the context exclude Sense 1? No, they are definitely young.
    *   Which is the *primary* meaning intended? "Your children" usually means "your offspring". Even if they are young, the reference is to the relationship with the parent.
    *   However, in many WSD datasets (like OntoNotes or SemCor), "children" in a school context is often tagged as the "young person" sense (Sense 1), whereas "They have two children" is the "offspring" sense (Sense 2).
    *   Let's verify this heuristic.
    *   Sentence: "The children are playing outside." -> Sense 1 (Young people).
    *   Sentence: "They have three children." -> Sense 2 (Offspring).
    *   Sentence: "Parents love their children." -> Sense 2 (Offspring). This highlights the relationship.
    *   Sentence: "The school educates children." -> Sense 1 (Young people).
    *   The current sentence is a hybrid: "Parents ... your children ... elementary schools".
    *   The prompt asks for "fine-grained Word Sense Disambiguation" and says "WordNet glosses are schematic".
    *   Let's look at the specific gloss for Sense 1: "a young person of either sex".
    *   Let's look at the specific gloss for Sense 2: "a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age".
    *   Crucial test: Can the referents be adults? No, because of "elementary schools".
    *   Because the referents are restricted to young people (Sense 1), does that make it Sense 1? Or does the possession ("your children") make it Sense 2?
    *   Usually, when a specific subset of offspring is mentioned (e.g., "young children", "school-age children"), the "offspring" definition (Sense 2) is modified by adjectives that align with Sense 1.
    *   However, WordNet Sense 1 is "a young person". It is a description of the entity itself, not its relationship to another.
    *   WordNet Sense 2 is "a human offspring". It is a description of the relationship.
    *   "Your children" is a relational phrase. "Your offspring".
    *   "Children in elementary school" is a categorical phrase. "Young people in elementary school".
    *   The phrase is "encourage creativity in **your children**".
    *   The possession "your" is the closest syntactic link. It emphasizes the relationship to the parents.
    *   If the sentence were "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in *children*?" (no "your"), it would be Sense 1.
    *   Because it says "your children", it refers to the specific offspring of the parents.
    *   Is it possible that Sense 2 is the correct choice because the primary semantic link here is kinship, and the "young" part is incidental context provided by the school setting?
    *   Let's check the definitions again.
    *   Sense 2 explicitly says "of any age". This implies that if I say "children" referring to offspring, they *could* be adults. If I say "My children are in elementary school", I am using the word "children" to denote offspring. The fact that they are young is additional info provided by "elementary school".
    *   Conversely, Sense 1 defines the person as "young". If I say "The children are playing", I am referring to their youth, not necessarily their parentage.
    *   In the context "ask American parents... about your children", the concept of *parentage* is foregrounded. The speaker is addressing them in their capacity as parents. Therefore, the "offspring" sense (Sense 2) seems semantically more precise regarding the lexical choice "your children".
    *   Let's reconsider Sense 1. Is "children" in "your children" used to mean "young persons"? Yes, they are. But "your" binds it to the parent.
    *   Often, WSD for "child" distinguishes between the "kid/youngster" sense (often non-possessive or general plural) and the "son/daughter" sense (often possessive).
    *   Let's check the "young" constraint. If "children" means offspring of any age, but the context restricts it to young ones, is it still Sense 2? Yes, because the word choice relates to the parents. If the word was "kids", Sense 1 would be more likely. "Your kids" is colloquial for "your offspring" or "your young children".
    *   Let's look at the examples for Sense 2: "they had three children". This emphasizes the number/existence of offspring.
    *   Let's look at examples for Sense 1: "she writes books for children". This emphasizes the target demographic based on age/development.
    *   The current context: "encourage creativity in your children".
    *   Is the focus on the demographic (young people) or the relationship (offspring)?
    *   The sentence structure "ask parents... about your children" strongly pulls towards the relationship (Sense 2). The parents are responsible for their offspring. The education system acts *in loco parentis*.
    *   However, many WSD annotators might tag "children" in a school setting as Sense 1.
    *   Let's look at the synonyms again. Sense 1: "kid, youngster, minor". Sense 2: "kid".
    *   "Youngster" fits the school context.
    *   Let's try to find a deciding factor.
    *   Sense 1 definition: "a young person".
    *   Sense 2 definition: "a human offspring ... of any age".
    *   If I substitute the word with the definition:
    *   "encourage creativity in your [young persons]" -> Plausible.
    *   "encourage creativity in your [offspring]" -> Plausible.
    *   Which is the intended meaning?
    *   Parents typically view their "children" as their offspring (Sense 2). The school views them as young persons (Sense 1).
    *   The speaker is asking *parents*. The possessive "your" is the key. "Your offspring".
    *   If I replace "children" with "offspring", the sentence works perfectly. "encourage creativity in your offspring".
    *   If I replace "children" with "young persons", "encourage creativity in your young persons" sounds awkward.
    *   Therefore, Sense 2 appears to be the correct sense.

    *   *Counter-argument check*: Does the word "children" in the plural, when referring to the young demographic, default to Sense 1?
    *   Example: "The children are playing." (Sense 1).
    *   Example: "Their children are playing." (Still Sense 1? Or Sense 2?).
    *   If I say "Their children are doctors", it must be Sense 2.
    *   If I say "Their children are in kindergarten", it could be Sense 1 (young age) or Sense 2 (offspring status).
    *   WordNet definitions for Sense 1 (young person) and Sense 2 (offspring) overlap significantly when the offspring are young.
    *   However, the defining characteristic of Sense 2 is the parent-child relationship.
    *   The defining characteristic of Sense 1 is the age.
    *   In "your children", the word "your" (possessive) modifies "children" to establish the relationship.
    *   Without "your", "children" in "elementary schools" would be Sense 1.
    *   With "your", the relationship to the parents is foregrounded.
    *   Therefore, Sense 2 is the better fit because the context explicitly frames the children as the progeny of the parents.

    *   Let's double check Sense 1 again. Synonyms: "youngster". "Your youngsters". Also plausible.
    *   Let's double check Sense 2. Synonyms: "kid". "Your kids". Plausible.
    *   Let's look at the examples in WordNet again.
    *   Sense 1: "she writes books for children". (General group, no possession).
    *   Sense 2: "they had three children". (Possession/Lineage context).
    *   The current context involves possession ("your children") and the parties involved ("parents").
    *   This matches the pattern of Sense 2 examples ("they had...", "their kids"). The presence of the parents and the possessive determiner "your" strongly points to the offspring relation.
    *   The fact that they are young (implied by elementary school) is contextually true, but the sense *selection* is driven by the lexical relation "parent -> child".
    *   If the text meant "young people" specifically, it might use "youngsters" or "students". Using "children" with "parents" highlights the kinship.
    *   Therefore, Sense 2 (offspring) is the most precise fit for the relationship depicted.

    *   Wait, let me think if there is a reason to pick Sense 1.
    *   In educational contexts, "children" is often used interchangeably with "students" or "young learners".
    *   "Teaching children requires patience."
    *   But here, the question is posed to *parents* about *their* children. The link is genealogical.
    *   "Do you want the school to teach your offspring?" vs "Do you want the school to teach young people?"
    *   The question is about the parents' specific kids. Sense 2 covers this perfectly.
    *   Sense 2 definition: "a human offspring... of any age". The "any age" part defines the sense boundaries (it includes adult children). Here, they happen to be young, but the word usage refers to the offspring status relative to the parents.
    *   Thus, Sense 2 is correct.

    *   Let's check Sense 3 again. "immature childish person". "Your immature childish person"? No. "Your baby"? No. It's literal.
    *   Sense 4. "Children of Israel". No.

    *   Final decision: Sense 2.
    *   Reasoning recap:
        *   Context: "American parents", "your children".
        *   Possessive "your" links "children" to "parents".
        *   Primary semantic relation is kinship/offspring.
        *   Sense 2 definition: "a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age".
        *   While the children are young (Sense 1 also fits descriptively), the lexical usage "your children" in the context of addressing parents invokes the offspring relationship (Sense 2). WordNet distinguishes the "offspring" relation (Sense 2) from the "young person" description (Sense 1). Since the sentence focuses on the parents' relationship to them ("your children"), Sense 2 is the distinct choice.

    *   Wait, is there an argument for Sense 1 being the 'default'?
    *   Often, "children" just means "young people".
    *   Example: "Parents, watch your children." -> Watch your offspring? Or watch your young persons?
    *   If I say "Watch your kids", "kids" is a synonym for both Sense 1 and Sense 2.
    *   However, "offspring" is the defining gloss for Sense 2. "Young person" is the defining gloss for Sense 1.
    *   The presence of "parents" makes the "offspring" aspect salient.
    *   If the sentence were "The school welcomes children", it would be Sense 1 (generic young people).
    *   "The school welcomes your children" -> The school welcomes your offspring.
    *   The "your" makes it specific and relational.
    *   Let's verify Sense 1 examples again: "she writes books for children". (Generic).
    *   Sense 2 examples: "they had three children". (Relational).
    *   The text is relational ("parents" -> "your children").
    *   Conclusion: Sense 2.

    *   Let's double check indices provided in prompt.
    *   1. sense_key=child%1:18:00:: (young person)
    *   2. sense_key=child%1:18:01:: (offspring)
    *   3. sense_key=child%1:18:06:: (immature)
    *   4. sense_key=child%1:18:07:: (clan member)
    *   Selected Sense: 2.

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: answer
Target surface form: answer
Context:
It's not that we do not know how to, because we do. It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to ask a sample of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous <t>answer</t> would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we mean, specifically, by "creativity "?

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=answer%1:10:01:: | definition=a statement (either spoken or written) that is made to reply to a question or request or criticism or accusation | synonyms=reply, response | examples=I waited several days for his answer; he wrote replies to several of his critics
2. sense_key=answer%1:10:02:: | definition=a statement that solves a problem or explains how to solve the problem | synonyms=solution, result, resolution, solvent | examples=they were trying to find a peaceful solution; the answers were in the back of the book
3. sense_key=answer%1:10:00:: | definition=the speech act of replying to a question
4. sense_key=answer%1:10:03:: | definition=the principal pleading by the defendant in response to plaintiff's complaint; in criminal law it consists of the defendant's plea of `guilty' or `not guilty' (or nolo contendere); in civil law it must contain denials of all allegations in the plaintiff's complaint that the defendant hopes to controvert and it can contain affirmative defenses or counterclaims
5. sense_key=answer%1:04:00:: | definition=a nonverbal reaction | examples=his answer to any problem was to get drunk; their answer was to sue me

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 target word is "answer" in the context: "the near-unanimous answer would be, 'Yes, of course.'"

Let me analyze the context:
- The author is talking about asking American parents a question: "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children?"
- The parents would give a response: "Yes, of course."
- This is a spoken/written statement made to reply to a question

Let me check each sense:

1. sense_key=answer%1:10:01:: - "a statement (either spoken or written) that is made to reply to a question or request or criticism or accusation" - This fits well. The parents are giving a statement ("Yes, of course") in reply to a question.

2. sense_key=answer%1:10:02:: - "a statement that solves a problem or explains how to solve the problem" - This doesn't fit. The "Yes, of course" is not solving a problem.

3. sense_key=answer%1:10:00:: - "the speech act of replying to a question" - This is close, but sense 1 is more specific and fits better with the actual content being a statement.

4. sense_key=answer%1:10:03:: - Legal pleading by defendant - clearly doesn't fit.

5. sense_key=answer%1:04:00:: - "a nonverbal reaction" - This doesn't fit because the answer here is verbal ("Yes, of course").

Between sense 1 and sense 3:
- Sense 1 focuses on the statement itself (the content of the reply)
- Sense 3 focuses on the speech act (the act of replying)

In the context, "the near-unanimous answer would be, 'Yes, of course'" - the answer here refers to what is said (the statement), not just the act of replying. The quoted content "Yes, of course" is the answer.

Sense 1 seems most appropriate. It's a statement made in reply to a question, which matches exactly what's happening here.

Let me verify: The synonyms for sense 1 are "reply, response" and examples include "I waited several days for his answer" - this aligns well with the context where parents are giving a reply/response to a question.

Sense 1 is the best fit.

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: mean
Target surface form: mean
Context:
It's that we do not want to. And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to ask a sample of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we <t>mean</t>, specifically, by "creativity "? No one can say.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=mean%2:32:01:: | definition=mean or intend to express or convey | synonyms=intend | examples=You never understand what I mean!; what do his words intend?
2. sense_key=mean%2:42:00:: | definition=have as a logical consequence | synonyms=entail, imply | examples=The water shortage means that we have to stop taking long showers
3. sense_key=mean%2:32:03:: | definition=denote or connote | synonyms=intend, signify, stand for | examples=`maison' means `house' in French; An example sentence would show what this word means
4. sense_key=mean%2:31:00:: | definition=have in mind as a purpose | synonyms=intend, think | examples=I mean no harm; I only meant to help you
5. sense_key=mean%2:42:03:: | definition=have a specified degree of importance | examples=My ex-husband means nothing to me; Happiness means everything
6. sense_key=mean%2:31:01:: | definition=intend to refer to | synonyms=think of, have in mind | examples=I'm thinking of good food when I talk about France; Yes, I meant you when I complained about people who gossip!
7. sense_key=mean%2:31:05:: | definition=destine or designate for a certain purpose | examples=These flowers were meant for you

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": 3}
```

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 3}
```

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the target word and context:**
    *   Target lemma: `mean`
    *   Target surface form: `mean`
    *   Context snippet: "But what do we mean, specifically, by 'creativity'? No one can say."
    *   The sentence asks for the definition or intended sense of the word "creativity". The speaker is asking: "What is the definition of 'creativity'?" or "What do we refer to when we say 'creativity'?"

2.  **Analyze the candidate senses:**

    *   **Sense 1:** `mean%2:32:01::` - "mean or intend to express or convey" | synonyms=intend | examples="You never understand what I mean!"
        *   *Analysis:* This is a very general sense of communication. "What do I mean?" = "What am I trying to say?" This is a strong contender.

    *   **Sense 2:** `mean%2:42:00::` - "have as a logical consequence" | synonyms=entail, imply | examples="The water shortage means that we have to stop taking long showers"
        *   *Analysis:* This is about entailment/implication (A implies B). The context is not about logical consequences.

    *   **Sense 3:** `mean%2:32:03::` - "denote or connote" | synonyms=intend, signify, stand for | examples="'maison' means 'house' in French; An example sentence would show what this word means"
        *   *Analysis:* This is about semantics, definitions, and what a word signifies. The context asks "what do we mean by 'creativity'?" which is asking for the definition or semantic content of the term. The example "An example sentence would show what this word means" aligns well with defining a concept.

    *   **Sense 4:** `mean%2:31:00::` - "have in mind as a purpose" | synonyms=intend, think | examples="I mean no harm; I only meant to help you"
        *   *Analysis:* This is about intent/purpose. While there is intent involved in communication, the specific question "what do we mean by 'creativity'?" is asking about the definition/usage of the word, not the benevolent or malevolent purpose of the speaker.

    *   **Sense 5:** `mean%2:42:03::` - "have a specified degree of importance" | examples="My ex-husband means nothing to me"
        *   *Analysis:* Irrelevant.

    *   **Sense 6:** `mean%2:31:01::` - "intend to refer to" | synonyms=think of, have in mind | examples="I'm thinking of good food when I talk about France"
        *   *Analysis:* This is about mental reference. "What do we mean by X" often overlaps with "what do we refer to". However, usually, when asking "what do we mean by [abstract concept]", it's a question of definition or signification (Sense 3).

    *   **Sense 7:** `mean%2:31:05::` - "destine or designate for a certain purpose" | examples="These flowers were meant for you"
        *   *Analysis:* Irrelevant.

3.  **Narrowing down the choice (Sense 1 vs. Sense 3 vs. Sense 6):**

    *   *Context:* "But what do we mean, specifically, by 'creativity'?"
    *   The phrase "what do we mean by X" is a standard formulation for asking for a definition or semantic content.
    *   Sense 1 ("mean or intend to express or convey") focuses on the speaker's intended message. Example: "You never understand what I mean!"
    *   Sense 3 ("denote or connote") focuses on the meaning of the word or sign. Example: "'maison' means 'house' in French".
    *   In the text, the author is discussing the definition of a term ("creativity"). The text says: "...challenge them. Here is an example... what do we mean... by 'creativity'?"
    *   The author is analyzing the semantics of the word "creativity" because people say "Yes" to encouraging it, but don't know the definition.
    *   Sense 3 specifically deals with what a word signifies or denotes ("An example sentence would show what this word means"). This fits the meta-linguistic inquiry of the passage perfectly. Sense 1 is more about interpersonal communication misunderstandings. Sense 3 is about the definition of a term.

    *   Let's check Sense 6 ("intend to refer to"). Example: "I meant you when I complained..." This is about reference resolution. The context is asking for the definition/concept, not resolving a reference to a specific object/person.

    *   Comparing Sense 1 and Sense 3:
        *   Sense 1: "What do I mean?" (General intent).
        *   Sense 3: "What does X mean?" (Definition/Semantics).
        *   The sentence is "what do we mean... by 'creativity'?" The structure "mean by [word]" strongly aligns with Sense 3 (definition/denotation). The example for Sense 3 is "An example sentence would show what this word means". The context is asking what the word "creativity" entails/signifies.

    *   Therefore, Sense 3 is the most precise fit for asking about the definition of a word or concept.

    *   Let's re-evaluate Sense 1. If I say "What do you mean?", it's Sense 1. If I say "What does 'ubiquitous' mean?", it's Sense 3.
    *   The sentence is "what do we mean... by 'creativity'?"
    *   Syntactically, "mean by [term]" usually maps to the definition sense (Sense 3).
    *   Example in Sense 3: "An example sentence would show what this word means".
    *   Context: The author is critiquing the lack of a clear definition. Sense 3 (denote or connote) captures the semantic relation between the word and the concept.

    *   Let's double-check Sense 1's definition: "mean or intend to express or convey".
    *   Is "what do we mean by creativity" asking what we intend to express? Yes.
    *   Is it asking what the word denotes? Yes.
    *   Which is better?
    *   In WordNet, Sense 1 is often the "communicative intent" sense. Sense 3 is the "linguistic meaning" sense.
    *   The sentence is about the usage/definition of the term.
    *   Sense 3 examples: "`maison' means `house' in French".
    *   The phrase "mean by" is crucial.
    *   Oxford English Dictionary (OED) distinction: "mean" (intend to say) vs "mean" (signify).
    *   Here, the subject is "we". "What do we mean by 'creativity'?"
    *   If the subject is a person, it often leans towards intent (Sense 1 or 6).
    *   If the subject is a word ("'Maison' means 'house'"), it is Sense 3.
    *   However, the construction "What do you mean by X?" is the standard idiom for asking for a definition of X used by the speaker.
    *   WordNet sense 3 includes "intend" as a synonym? Yes (oddly, for Sense 3: synonyms=intend, signify, stand for).
    *   Let's look at Sense 1 synonyms: intend.
    *   Let's look at Sense 3 examples again. "`maison' means `house' in French".
    *   Let's look at Sense 1 examples. "You never understand what I mean!"
    *   The text says: "...what do we mean, specifically, by 'creativity'? No one can say."
    *   The issue is that people use the word but there is no agreed definition.
    *   This fits Sense 3 (denote/connote). Even though "we" is the agent, the verb governs the prepositional phrase "by 'creativity'" which asks for the signification of the word.
    *   Often, WordNet classifiers map "What do you mean by X?" to Sense 1 (intent to express) or Sense 3 (signify).
    *   Let's look at the definition of Sense 3: "denote or connote".
    *   Let's look at the definition of Sense 1: "mean or intend to express or convey".
    *   In the phrase "What do we mean by 'creativity'?", the speaker is asking for the concept associated with the word. This is signification.
    *   Sense 3 is "maison means house".
    *   The phrase "What do we mean by X" is asking "What does X mean?"
    *   Semantic Web / WSD benchmarks often distinguish these.
    *   If I say "I mean business", it's Sense 1.
    *   If I say "What does this word mean?", it's Sense 3.
    *   The context has a person ("we") as the subject. This pushes it toward Sense 1/6.
    *   Sense 6: "intend to refer to". Example: "I meant you". This is specific reference.
    *   Sense 1: "intend to express". This is general intent.
    *   However, the object of the intent is the definition of a word.
    *   Let's check Sense 3 again. The synonym list includes "intend". The definition is "denote or connote".
    *   The usage "What do you mean by [Word]?" is the classic way to ask for the Sense 3 definition of a word, despite the human subject.
    *   If I ask "What do you mean by 'liberal'?", I am asking for your definition of the word 'liberal'. I am asking what the word *signifies* in your usage.
    *   This aligns with Sense 3's "denote or connote". The synonym "signify" is key here.
    *   Sense 1 is "You never understand what I mean" (My message/my thoughts).
    *   Sense 3 is "what this word means" (Lexical meaning).
    *   The text asks "what do we mean ... by 'creativity'". This is querying the lexical meaning/concept associated with the label.
    *   Therefore, Sense 3 is the best fit because the focus is on the definition of the word "creativity", not just the speaker's general intent or mental state.

    *   Let's confirm with Sense 3 example: "An example sentence would show what this word means".
    *   The text asks "what do we mean ... by 'creativity'". This is functionally equivalent to "what does 'creativity' mean [to us/in this context]".
    *   The text highlights that "No one can say." They don't know the definition/signification.
    *   Sense 3 covers "signify".
    *   Therefore, I will select Sense 3.

    *   Wait, let me consider if Sense 1 is safer.
    *   Sense 1: "mean or intend to express or convey".
    *   Context: "But what do we mean, specifically, by 'creativity'?"
    *   Is the author asking "What do we intend to convey?" Yes.
    *   Is the author asking "What does the word denote?" Yes.
    *   In WordNet, sense 3 is often restricted to words having meaning ("The green light means 'go'").
    *   However, Sense 3's synonyms include `intend` and `signify`.
    *   Sense 1's synonyms are just `intend`.
    *   The explicit mention of `signify` and `stand for` in Sense 3 makes it the stronger candidate for questions of definition.
    *   The phrase "by 'creativity'" acts as the label whose meaning is being queried.
    *   Contrast: "I meant to go to the store" (Sense 4/1).
    *   Contrast: "I mean what I say" (Sense 1).
    *   Contrast: "What does 'pensiveness' mean?" (Sense 3).
    *   The phrasing "What do we mean by X?" is the human-agent version of "What does X mean?".
    *   Since the question is about the *definition* of the word creativity (which the author implies is missing), Sense 3 is the correct linguistic sense.

    Let's double check the sense indices.
    1. mean%2:32:01:: (intend to express)
    2. mean%2:42:00:: (entail)
    3. mean%2:32:03:: (denote/connote)
    4. mean%2:31:00:: (purpose)
    5. mean%2:42:03:: (importance)
    6. mean%2:31:01:: (refer to)
    7. mean%2:31:05:: (destine)

    The decision is between 1 and 3.
    Sense 1: "You never understand what I mean" -> Interpretation of a speaker's total message.
    Sense 3: "`maison' means `house'" -> Semantic equivalence/definition.
    Context: The text challenges the definition of "creativity". The subject ("we") is generic (parents/society). The object is the definition.
    "What do we mean by 'creativity'?" = "What is the definition of 'creativity'?"
    This maps to Sense 3.

    Final check: Sense 6? "intend to refer to". Example: "I meant you". This is about pointing out a specific referent. "Creativity" is a concept, not a specific referent being pointed out in a crowd. Sense 6 is less appropriate than 3.

    Result: Sense 3.


[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: one
Target surface form: one
Context:
And the reason we do not want to is that effective education would require us to relinquish some cherished metaphysical beliefs about human nature in general and the human nature of young people in particular, well as to violate some cherished vested interests. These beliefs so dominate our educational establishment, our media, our politicians, and even our parents that it seems almost blasphemous to challenge them. Here is an example. If I were to ask a sample of American parents, "Do you wish the elementary schools to encourage creativity in your children? "the near-unanimous answer would be, "Yes, of course. "But what do we mean, specifically, by "creativity "? No <t>one</t> can say. In practice, it ends up being equated with a "self-expression "that encourages the youngsters' "self-esteem. "

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=one%1:23:00:: | definition=the smallest whole number or a numeral representing this number | synonyms=1, I, ace, single, unity | examples=he has the one but will need a two and three to go with it; they had lunch at one
2. sense_key=one%1:09:00:: | definition=a single person or thing | examples=he is the best one; this is the one I ordered

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": 2}
```

content:
```json
{"sense_index": 2}
```

reasoning_content:
1.  **Analyze the Target:**
    *   Target lemma: "one"
    *   Target surface form: "one"
    *   Context snippet: "No one can say."

2.  **Analyze the Context:**
    *   The sentence is: "No one can say."
    *   The phrase "No one" is a compound indefinite pronoun (or a determiner + noun structure acting as a pronoun) meaning "nobody" or "no person".
    *   Here, "one" refers to a person. Specifically, it refers to any person in the hypothetical group asked to define creativity.
    *   It is not referring to the number 1 (numeral/quantity).

3.  **Analyze the Candidate Senses:**
    *   **Sense 1:** `one%1:23:00::` | definition="the smallest whole number or a numeral representing this number" | synonyms="1, I, ace, single, unity".
        *   This is the numerical sense. "No 1 can say" doesn't fit. This is not about counting or the integer.
    *   **Sense 2:** `one%1:09:00::` | definition="a single person or thing" | examples="he is the best one; this is the one I ordered".
        *   This sense covers the pronominal use where "one" stands for a person or thing previously mentioned or general. In the phrase "No one", "one" functions as a pronoun referring to a person. The definition "a single person or thing" fits the semantic role of "one" in "no one" (no person).

4.  **Evaluate the Fit:**
    *   In "No one can say", "one" acts as an indefinite pronoun referring to a person.
    *   Sense 1 is strictly numerical/cardinal.
    *   Sense 2 is the generic/individual noun/pronoun sense ("a single person or thing").
    *   Although WordNet often separates "one" (pronoun) from "one" (number), here the options provided are limited to two.
    *   Is "No one" Sense 1 or Sense 2?
        *   Sense 1 is defined as the *number* (numeral).
        *   Sense 2 is defined as a *person or thing*. "No one" means "no person". Therefore, Sense 2 is the correct choice among the two options.

    *   Let's double-check WordNet hierarchy.
        *   `one%1:23:00::` is under `number` -> `whole number`.
        *   `one%1:09:00::` is under `entity` -> `physical entity` -> `object` -> `whole` -> `living thing` -> ... -> `person` (or generally just `entity`). Actually, looking at the synset structure for `one%1:09:00::` (usually 1:09:00 refers to 'person' or 'individual'), it fits the usage in "No one" (meaning nobody).

    *   Context: "No one can say." -> "No person can say."
    *   Definition 2: "a single person or thing".
    *   This matches.

5.  **Final Decision:**
    *   Sense 1 is the number.
    *   Sense 2 is the person/thing.
    *   "No one" refers to "no person".
    *   Therefore, Sense 2 is the correct match.

6.  **Formatting Output:**
    *   The user wants a JSON object `{"sense_index": X}`.
    *   Since the senses are numbered 1 and 2 in the list, and I need to choose the second one.
    *   Wait, the prompt asks for "indexed sense". Usually, the list provided is 1-based. The candidates are listed as:
        1. sense_key=one%1:23:00:: ...
        2. sense_key=one%1:09:00:: ...
    *   I choose the second one.

    *   Output: `{"sense_index": 2}`.