[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: candidate
Target surface form: candidates
Context:
This is indeed what the data indicate, particularly in the case of the House. The Democratic House attendance rate has not exceeded the Republican House attendance rate since 1959. Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices. An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987 -LRB- when control of that body changed party hands -RRB-, moreover, reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to the disproportionate control Democrats exercise, due to their majority - party status, over other resources such as committee staff. An additional piece of evidence from the Senate: Holding other factors constant, such as incumbency advantages and regional factors, the difference between popular votes for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates in states conducting a Senate election turns out to be a positive function of how onerous the federal government's tax burden is per state -LRB- a progressive tax rate hits higher - income states harder -RRB-. Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican <t>candidates</t> for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more severe. Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=candidate%1:18:01:: | definition=a politician who is running for public office | synonyms=campaigner, nominee
2. sense_key=candidate%1:18:00:: | definition=someone who is considered for something (for an office or prize or honor etc.) | synonyms=prospect

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

reasoning_content:
 The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation for the word "candidates" in the given context.

Target lemma: candidate
Target surface form: candidates
Context: Political text discussing House attendance rates, Senate elections, presidential vs senatorial candidates, Republican candidates for president vs Republican candidates for the Senate.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=candidate%1:18:01:: | definition=a politician who is running for public office | synonyms=campaigner, nominee
2. sense_key=candidate%1:18:00:: | definition=someone who is considered for something (for an office or prize or honor etc.) | synonyms=prospect

Analyzing the context:
- The text discusses "senatorial candidates" and "GOP candidates for president" and "Republican candidates for the Senate"
- This is clearly referring to politicians running for public office (Senate, President)
- The context mentions elections, voting, incumbency, ticket splitting
- "Senatorial candidates" means people running for Senate office
- "Presidential candidates" means people running for President

Sense 1: "a politician who is running for public office" - this fits perfectly. The context is about people running for Senate and President positions.

Sense 2: "someone who is considered for something (for an office or prize or honor etc.)" - this is more general. While technically candidates for office are "considered for" office, the specific context of elections and politicians running for public office points to Sense 1.

The key distinction:
- Sense 1 is specifically about politicians running for public office
- Sense 2 is broader, any person being considered for anything (job candidate, award candidate, etc.)

In the context: "Republican presidential and senatorial candidates", "GOP candidates for president", "Republican candidates for the Senate" - these are all politicians running for public office.

Therefore, Sense 1 (candidate%1:18:01::) is the best fit.

The instruction says: "Return only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3}." But the senses are indexed 1 and 2 in my list. So I should return {"sense_index": 1} for the first sense (the one with key candidate%1:18:01::).

Wait, let me check: the user lists:
1. sense_key=candidate%1:18:01::
2. sense_key=candidate%1:18:00::

So index 1 is the politician sense, index 2 is the general prospect sense.

I should choose index 1.

Double-checking:
- "senatorial candidates" - definitely politicians running for Senate
- "candidates for president" - definitely running for public office
- The context compares votes for presidential vs senatorial candidates

Yes, definitely sense 1.

The output should be: {"sense_index": 1}


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: severe
Target surface form: severe
Context:
This is indeed what the data indicate, particularly in the case of the House. The Democratic House attendance rate has not exceeded the Republican House attendance rate since 1959. Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices. An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987 -LRB- when control of that body changed party hands -RRB-, moreover, reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to the disproportionate control Democrats exercise, due to their majority - party status, over other resources such as committee staff. An additional piece of evidence from the Senate: Holding other factors constant, such as incumbency advantages and regional factors, the difference between popular votes for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates in states conducting a Senate election turns out to be a positive function of how onerous the federal government's tax burden is per state -LRB- a progressive tax rate hits higher - income states harder -RRB-. Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more <t>severe</t>. Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:intense:00 | definition=intensely or extremely bad or unpleasant in degree or quality | synonyms=terrible, wicked | examples=severe pain; a severe case of flu
2. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:strong:00 | definition=very strong or vigorous | synonyms=hard, knockout | examples=strong winds; a hard left to the chin
3. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:plain:01 | definition=severely simple | synonyms=austere, stark, stern | examples=a stark interior
4. sense_key=severe%5:00:02:nonindulgent:00 | definition=unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment; - H.G.Wells | synonyms=spartan | examples=a parent severe to the pitch of hostility; a hefty six-footer with a rather severe mien
5. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:critical:03 | definition=causing fear or anxiety by threatening great harm | synonyms=dangerous, grave, grievous, serious, life-threatening | examples=a dangerous operation; a grave situation
6. sense_key=severe%5:00:01:bad:00 | definition=very bad in degree or extent | examples=a severe worldwide depression; the house suffered severe damage

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:
 The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation for the word "severe" in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 - The text is discussing political science, specifically about voting patterns, tax burdens, and prison sentences.
 - The specific sentence is: "Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more <t>severe</t>."
 - So "severe" is modifying "sentence" (as in prison sentence).

 Now let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:intense:00 | definition=intensely or extremely bad or unpleasant in degree or quality | synonyms=terrible, wicked | examples=severe pain; a severe case of flu
    - This could fit for a prison sentence being severe (unpleasant/bad), but let's check others.

 2. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:strong:00 | definition=very strong or vigorous | synonyms=hard, knockout | examples=strong winds; a hard left to the chin
    - "Strong sentence" doesn't quite fit the context of punishment.

 3. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:plain:01 | definition=severely simple | synonyms=austere, stark, stern | examples=a stark interior
    - This is about simplicity/austerity, not relevant to prison sentences.

 4. sense_key=severe%5:00:02:nonindulgent:00 | definition=unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment; - H.G.Wells | synonyms=spartan | examples=a parent severe to the pitch of hostility; a hefty six-footer with a rather severe mien
    - This is about being strict or harsh in discipline. This could apply to a sentence (punishment).

 5. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:critical:03 | definition=causing fear or anxiety by threatening great harm | synonyms=dangerous, grave, grievous, serious, life-threatening | examples=a dangerous operation; a grave situation
    - This is about dangerous/critical situations, not quite right for a prison sentence.

 6. sense_key=severe%5:00:01:bad:00 | definition=very bad in degree or extent | examples=a severe worldwide depression; the house suffered severe damage
    - This is about something being very bad in extent. "Severe sentence" could fit here.

 Now I need to distinguish between sense 1 (intensely/extremely bad), sense 4 (unsparing in discipline/judgment), and sense 6 (very bad in degree or extent).

 Looking at the examples:
 - Sense 1: severe pain, severe case of flu - these are about intensity of unpleasantness
 - Sense 4: a parent severe to the pitch of hostility, severe mien - these are about strictness/harshness in character or discipline
 - Sense 6: severe worldwide depression, severe damage - these are about extent/degree of badness

 A "severe sentence" in the context of a prisoner's sentence refers to the harshness or strictness of the punishment/judgment. This aligns well with sense 4 (unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment).

 However, sense 6 is also plausible as "very bad in degree or extent" - a severe sentence being a very bad/harsh one.

 Let me look more carefully at the distinctions:
 - Sense 1 (intense:00): intensely or extremely bad or unpleasant - focuses on the quality of being extreme in unpleasantness
 - Sense 4 (nonindulgent:00): unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment - focuses on strictness, lack of leniency
 - Sense 6 (bad:00): very bad in degree or extent - focuses on the magnitude of badness

 In legal contexts, a "severe sentence" typically means a harsh or strict punishment - emphasizing the lack of leniency (nonindulgent) rather than just being "bad" or "intense."

 But wait, looking at WordNet's actual structure:
 - Sense 4 (severe%5:00:02:nonindulgent:00) is typically used for people being strict (a severe teacher, severe parent).
 - Sense 6 (severe%5:00:01:bad:00) is used for things like severe damage, severe depression, severe illness.
 - Sense 1 (severe%5:00:00:intense:00) is for severe pain, severe case of flu.

 Actually, looking at the examples provided in the candidate senses:
 - Sense 4 examples: "a parent severe to the pitch of hostility", "severe mien" - these are about demeanor/attitude of people.
 - Sense 6 examples: "severe worldwide depression", "severe damage" - these are about conditions or outcomes.

 A prison sentence is a judgment/penalty. When we say a sentence is severe, we mean it is harsh or strict (nonindulgent). But we could also mean it is very bad/extensive in its punishment (bad:00).

 However, looking at standard WordNet usage:
 - "Severe" in the context of punishment or discipline usually maps to the "nonindulgent" sense (sense 4).
 - But "severe sentence" might actually be closer to sense 6 or sense 1.

 Let me reconsider. The phrase is "the prisoner's sentence is more severe."

 In WordNet:
 - severe%5:00:02:nonindulgent:00 - "unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment"
 - This seems to fit best because a sentence is a form of judgment/discipline.

 But let me check if there's a specific sense for punishments. The word "sentence" here refers to a judicial punishment.

 Actually, looking at the synonyms:
 - Sense 4: spartan
 - Sense 6: (no synonyms listed in the candidate, but typically would include harsh?)

 Wait, looking at the candidate list again:
 - Sense 6: definition=very bad in degree or extent | examples=a severe worldwide depression; the house suffered severe damage

 "Severe damage" is about extent. "Severe sentence" - is it about the extent of the punishment or the strictness of the judge?

 In the context: "when the prisoner's sentence is more severe" - this is comparing the severity of sentences. This is about how harsh the punishment is.

 I think sense 4 (nonindulgent) is the best fit because it relates to judgment and discipline. A severe sentence is one that is unsparing and uncompromising.

 However, I should verify if "severe" in "severe sentence" is more commonly associated with sense 1 (intense) or sense 6 (bad).

 Actually, looking at WordNet 3.0 or 3.1 data:
 - severe (adj) has senses including:
   1. intensely or extremely bad or unpleasant (intense)
   2. very strong or vigorous (strong)
   3. severely simple (plain)
   4. unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment (nonindulgent)
   5. causing fear or anxiety by threatening great harm (critical)
   6. very bad in degree or extent (bad)

 For "severe sentence", corpus evidence would likely show it aligns with sense 4 (nonindulgent) because it relates to the strictness of judicial judgment, or possibly sense 6 (bad) as a severe sentence is a very bad one to receive.

 But given the specific context about "prisoner's sentence" and the comparison to tax burden being "onerous", and the overall discussion about punishment/hardship...

 "Onerous" means burdensome. The tax burden is onerous. The sentence is severe. These are parallel constructions about harshness.

 Sense 4 (nonindulgent) emphasizes the lack of leniency in judgment.
 Sense 6 (bad) emphasizes the negative quality.

 I think for a judicial sentence, sense 4 is more precise because a sentence is an act of judgment/discipline. However, sense 6 is also very plausible.

 Let me look at the examples again to see which pattern "prisoner's sentence" fits better:
 - Sense 4 examples: parent severe to the pitch of hostility, severe mien (demeanor)
 - Sense 6 examples: severe worldwide depression, severe damage

 A sentence is not a person, so it doesn't have a "mien" or attitude. But it is the result of judgment.

 Actually, looking carefully at sense 4: "unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment"
 - This can apply to the judgment itself (the sentence).

 Looking at sense 6: "very bad in degree or extent"
 - This can apply to the sentence as an event/condition.

 But "severe" when applied to punishment typically maps to the "harsh/strict" meaning, which is sense 4.

 Wait, I should check if there's a distinction between:
 - severe punishment (likely sense 4 or 6)
 - severe pain (sense 1)
 - severe weather (sense 1 or 2)

 Actually, looking at standard WSD datasets like SemCor or Senseval:
 - "severe" in context of punishment/sentence often maps to sense 4 (nonindulgent) or sometimes sense 1.

 But given the options, and the fact that sense 4 specifically mentions "judgment" in the definition ("unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment"), and a prison sentence is a judicial judgment, sense 4 seems the most accurate.

 However, I need to be careful. The definition of sense 4 says "unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment". A sentence is the product of judgment, but the sentence itself is not the one being unsparing - the judge is. But we can describe the sentence as severe meaning it reflects unsparing judgment.

 Sense 6: "very bad in degree or extent" - a 20-year sentence is more severe than a 1-year sentence because it is worse in extent.

 But looking at the synonym for sense 4: "spartan" - which means austere, strict, harsh.
 Looking at the (implied) synonym for sense 6: it's about being very bad.

 In the context of the paragraph, the author is talking about the tax burden being "onerous" (burdensome, oppressive) and the prisoner's sentence being "severe". The parallel suggests both are about harshness/strictness rather than just "badness".

 Also, the mention of "progressive tax rate hits higher-income states harder" and "prisoner's sentence is more severe" - both "harder" and "severe" suggest intensity of punishment/burden.

 Between sense 1 (intensely bad) and sense 4 (unsparing in judgment), sense 4 seems more specific to the judicial context.

 But I recall that in WordNet, "severe" for punishment is often sense 6 or sense 1. Let me reconsider.

 Actually, looking at the Princeton WordNet online:
 - severe, terrible, wicked (intensely or extremely bad or unpleasant) - sense 1
 - severe, hard, knockout (very strong or vigorous) - sense 2
 - austere, severe, stark, stern (severely simple) - sense 3
 - severe, spartan (unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment) - sense 4
 - dangerous, grave, grievous, serious, severe, life-threatening (causing fear or anxiety...) - sense 5
 - severe (very bad in degree or extent) - sense 6

 For "severe sentence", looking at usage:
 - "He received a severe sentence of 20 years" - this is about the punishment being harsh/strict.

 In many WSD systems, "severe" + "punishment/sentence" is often tagged as sense 4 (nonindulgent) because it relates to the strictness of the penalty, or sense 6 (bad).

 But given the specific definition of sense 4 includes "judgment", and a sentence is a judicial judgment, I will go with sense 4.

 Wait, I should double-check sense 6. The example "severe damage" is similar to "severe sentence" in that both are negative outcomes. But "damage" is a condition, while "sentence" is a deliberate act of punishment.

 The key is "unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment". A severe sentence is one that does not spare the prisoner, is uncompromising.

 I think sense 4 is the best choice.

 But let me reconsider sense 1: "intensely or extremely bad or unpleasant in degree or quality". A 20-year sentence is extremely bad and unpleasant. This also fits.

 However, the presence of "judgment" in sense 4's definition makes it the better fit for a judicial sentence.

 Final check: The context mentions "prisoner's sentence". This is clearly a legal punishment. The word "severe" here means harsh or strict. Sense 4 captures this with "unsparing and uncompromising in discipline or judgment". Sense 6 is too general ("very bad"). Sense 1 is about being extremely unpleasant (like pain).

 Therefore, the answer should be sense_index: 4.

 Wait, I need to check the indexing. The user lists:
 1. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:intense:00
 2. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:strong:00
 3. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:plain:01
 4. sense_key=severe%5:00:02:nonindulgent:00
 5. sense_key=severe%5:00:00:critical:03
 6. sense_key=severe%5:00:01:bad:00

 So sense 4 is the nonindulgent one.

 Yes, I'll go with 4.

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: appear
Target surface form: appears
Context:
The Democratic House attendance rate has not exceeded the Republican House attendance rate since 1959. Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices. An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987 -LRB- when control of that body changed party hands -RRB-, moreover, reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to the disproportionate control Democrats exercise, due to their majority - party status, over other resources such as committee staff. An additional piece of evidence from the Senate: Holding other factors constant, such as incumbency advantages and regional factors, the difference between popular votes for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates in states conducting a Senate election turns out to be a positive function of how onerous the federal government's tax burden is per state -LRB- a progressive tax rate hits higher - income states harder -RRB-. Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more severe. Moreover, ticket splitting <t>appears</t> to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level. State government is more typically split along Republican-governor / Democratic-legislature lines than the reverse.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=appear%2:39:00:: | definition=give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect | synonyms=look, seem | examples=She seems to be sleeping; This appears to be a very difficult problem
2. sense_key=appear%2:30:00:: | definition=come into sight or view | examples=He suddenly appeared at the wedding; A new star appeared on the horizon
3. sense_key=appear%2:30:01:: | definition=be issued or published | synonyms=come out | examples=Did your latest book appear yet?; The new Woody Allen film hasn't come out yet
4. sense_key=appear%2:39:01:: | definition=seem to be true, probable, or apparent | synonyms=seem | examples=It seems that he is very gifted; It appears that the weather in California is very bad
5. sense_key=appear%2:30:02:: | definition=come into being or existence, or appear on the scene | synonyms=come along | examples=Then the computer came along and changed our lives; Homo sapiens appeared millions of years ago
6. sense_key=appear%2:36:00:: | definition=appear as a character on stage or appear in a play, etc. | examples=Gielgud appears briefly in this movie; She appeared in `Hamlet' on the London stage
7. sense_key=appear%2:41:03:: | definition=present oneself formally, as before a (judicial) authority | examples=He had to appear in court last month; She appeared on several charges of theft

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

reasoning_content:
The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation on the word "appears" in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 - The sentence is: "Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level."
 - The context is about political science, discussing how ticket splitting (voting for candidates of different parties for different offices) seems to follow a similar pattern at state and federal levels.

 Now let me look at the candidate senses:

 1. appear%2:39:00:: - give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect (look, seem)
    - Examples: "She seems to be sleeping; This appears to be a very difficult problem"
    - This is about giving an impression or seeming to be something.

 2. appear%2:30:00:: - come into sight or view
    - Examples: "He suddenly appeared at the wedding; A new star appeared on the horizon"
    - This is about physical appearance/visibility.

 3. appear%2:30:01:: - be issued or published
    - Examples: "Did your latest book appear yet?"
    - This is about publication.

 4. appear%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 is about seeming to be true or apparent from evidence.

 5. appear%2:30:02:: - come into being or existence, or appear on the scene
    - Examples: "Then the computer came along and changed our lives"
    - This is about emergence/coming into existence.

 6. appear%2:36:00:: - appear as a character on stage or appear in a play
    - This is about acting/performing.

 7. appear%2:41:03:: - present oneself formally, as before a (judicial) authority
    - This is about appearing in court.

 Now, looking at the specific usage: "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern..."

 This is saying that ticket splitting seems to take the same pattern, or it is apparent that ticket splitting takes the same pattern. This is an evidential use - based on the evidence presented, it seems/apparently is the case that...

 This matches sense 4: "seem to be true, probable, or apparent" with examples like "It appears that the weather in California is very bad."

 However, sense 1 is also close: "give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect" with examples like "This appears to be a very difficult problem."

 Let me distinguish between sense 1 and sense 4:

 Sense 1 (appear%2:39:00::): "give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect" - This is more about the subject giving an impression. "She appears happy" - she gives the impression of being happy.

 Sense 4 (appear%2:39:01::): "seem to be true, probable, or apparent" - This is more about the evidence suggesting something is the case. "It appears that..." - impersonal use indicating that something seems true based on evidence.

 In the sentence "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern", we have "ticket splitting" as the subject, and it "appears to take" the pattern. This could be interpreted as:
 1. Ticket splitting gives the impression of taking the same pattern (sense 1)
 2. It seems to be true that ticket splitting takes the same pattern (sense 4)

 But looking at the examples:
 - Sense 1: "She seems to be sleeping; This appears to be a very difficult problem"
 - Sense 4: "It seems that he is very gifted; It appears that the weather in California is very bad"

 The structure "X appears to Y" where X is the subject and Y is the infinitive is characteristic of sense 1 (compare: "This appears to be a very difficult problem").

 However, sense 4 examples show "It appears that..." structure.

 But wait, sense 4's definition is "seem to be true, probable, or apparent" and the examples include "It appears that..."

 Actually, looking more carefully at WordNet senses:
 - Sense 1: appear%2:39:00:: - This is the "seem" sense where the subject seems to have a certain quality. "She appears happy", "This appears to be difficult".
 - Sense 4: appear%2:39:01:: - This is also about seeming but specifically "seem to be true, probable, or apparent" - often used with "it" as the grammatical subject or with "that" clauses.

 In the sentence: "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern"

 This is similar to "This appears to be a very difficult problem" (from sense 1 examples).

 But it's also similar to evidential statements.

 Let me check the exact WordNet definitions more carefully. Since I don't have the exact WordNet database in front of me, I need to rely on the provided definitions and examples.

 Sense 1: "give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect" - synonyms: look, seem
 Examples: "She seems to be sleeping; This appears to be a very difficult problem"

 Sense 4: "seem to be true, probable, or apparent" - synonyms: seem
 Examples: "It seems that he is very gifted; It appears that the weather in California is very bad"

 The key difference:
 - Sense 1 focuses on the outward aspect or impression given by the subject.
 - Sense 4 focuses on the truth/probability/apparentness of a proposition.

 In "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern", the subject "ticket splitting" is not a physical entity giving an outward impression, but rather a phenomenon that seems to have a certain characteristic based on evidence.

 However, the structure "X appears to verb" is most commonly associated with sense 1 in WordNet, as shown by the example "This appears to be a very difficult problem."

 But wait, "ticket splitting appears to take..." vs "This appears to be..."

 Actually, looking at the context, this is an academic paper discussing empirical findings. The author is saying that based on the evidence, it appears (seems to be the case) that ticket splitting follows a certain pattern.

 This could be sense 4: "seem to be true, probable, or apparent"

 But sense 1 also covers "seem" generally.

 Let me look at the distinction between sense 1 and sense 4 in WordNet more precisely.

 In WordNet 3.0/3.1:
 - appear.v.01 (sense 1 here): give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect; "She seems to be sleeping"; "This appears to be a very difficult problem"
 - appear.v.04 (sense 4 here): seem to be true, probable, or apparent; "It seems that he is very gifted"; "It appears that the weather in California is very bad"

 The key distinction is that sense 1 is about the subject's appearance/look (seeming to have a property), while sense 4 is about the apparent truth of a proposition (often with "it" as the subject or with "that").

 In "ticket splitting appears to take...", we have a specific phenomenon (ticket splitting) seeming to have a property (taking a pattern). This is more like sense 1.

 However, there's also the interpretation that this is an impersonal "it appears that" construction but with "ticket splitting" moved to the subject position: "It appears that ticket splitting takes..." vs "Ticket splitting appears to take..."

 These are equivalent in meaning.

 But looking at the examples provided:
 - Sense 1: "This appears to be a very difficult problem" - matches the structure "X appears to be/verb..."
 - Sense 4: "It appears that the weather..." - uses "it" and "that"

 Given that the example for sense 1 explicitly includes "This appears to be...", and our sentence is "ticket splitting appears to take...", I think sense 1 is the better fit.

 However, I should also consider if this could be sense 4. The definition of sense 4 is "seem to be true, probable, or apparent". In academic writing, when we say "X appears to Y", we often mean "it seems to be true that X Ys" based on evidence.

 But the example for sense 1 "This appears to be a very difficult problem" is also an evidential statement.

 Actually, looking at standard WordNet distinctions:
 - Sense 1 (appear%2:39:00::) is the copular sense with adjectives or noun phrases: "appears happy", "appears a fool", "appears to be difficult"
 - Sense 4 (appear%2:39:01::) is the impersonal sense: "it appears that..."

 But "appear" can take "to" infinitive in both senses.

 Wait, I need to be careful. Let me reconsider.

 The sentence is: "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern"

 This means: based on the evidence presented, it seems that ticket splitting takes the same pattern.

 This is clearly an evidential use - indicating that something seems to be true based on available evidence.

 Sense 4 is defined as: "seem to be true, probable, or apparent"
 Sense 1 is defined as: "give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect"

 While both involve "seeming", sense 4 is specifically about truth/probability/apparentness of a fact, whereas sense 1 is about the outward aspect or impression.

 In the context of academic writing, when an author says "X appears to Y", they are typically using the evidential sense (sense 4), not saying that X gives a certain outward impression (sense 1).

 For example:
 - "He appears happy" (sense 1 - he gives the impression of being happy)
 - "It appears that he is happy" (sense 4 - it seems to be true that he is happy)

 But "He appears to be happy" could be either, but is usually considered sense 1.

 However, in the specific context of this academic text, the author is drawing a conclusion from evidence. The pattern "appears to" here is functioning as an evidential marker.

 But looking at the WordNet examples again:
 Sense 1: "She seems to be sleeping; This appears to be a very difficult problem"
 Sense 4: "It seems that he is very gifted; It appears that the weather in California is very bad"

 The example "This appears to be a very difficult problem" is very similar to our "ticket splitting appears to take..."

 "This" refers to something previously mentioned, just like "ticket splitting" refers to the phenomenon discussed.

 So sense 1 seems correct.

 But let me double-check by looking at the other senses to make sure none fit better.

 Sense 2: come into sight - no, ticket splitting is not physically appearing.
 Sense 3: be published - no.
 Sense 5: come into being - no, ticket splitting isn't coming into existence here.
 Sense 6: appear on stage - no.
 Sense 7: appear in court - no.

 So it's between sense 1 and sense 4.

 In many WordNet disambiguation tasks, the distinction between sense 1 and sense 4 of "appear" is tricky.

 Sense 1: appear%2:39:00:: - copular, with predicates (adjectives, NPs, to-infinitives describing the subject's state/characteristic)
 Sense 4: appear%2:39:01:: - impersonal, with "it" and "that" clauses, or meaning "to seem to be the case"

 But "ticket splitting appears to take..." has "ticket splitting" as the subject of "take", not as an impersonal construction.

 Actually, looking at the syntax:
 - "It appears that ticket splitting takes..." (sense 4)
 - "Ticket splitting appears to take..." (sense 1)

 The raising construction "X appears to verb" is typically sense 1.

 However, there's a subtle distinction in WordNet where sense 4 is specifically for "seem to be true" while sense 1 is for "give a certain impression".

 In the context: "Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level."

 This is stating an observed pattern - it seems to be the case that ticket splitting follows this pattern. This is evidential.

 But the example for sense 1 "This appears to be a very difficult problem" is also evidential.

 I think the safest choice is sense 1, because:
 1. The structure "NP appears to VP" matches the example "This appears to be..."
 2. Sense 4 is typically used with "it" as the grammatical subject (extraposition)

 However, I should verify if sense 4 can be used with raised subjects. The definition says "seem to be true, probable, or apparent" and the examples are "It seems that..." and "It appears that..."

 In WordNet, sense 4 (appear.v.04) is indeed the "it appears that" sense, while sense 1 (appear.v.01) is the "seem/look" sense with raised subjects.

 Therefore, "ticket splitting appears to take..." should be sense 1.

 Wait, I want to double-check the sense keys. The user provides:
 1. appear%2:39:00::
 4. appear%2:39:01::

 In WordNet:
 - appear%2:39:00:: is the first sense under verb.perception (or verb.stative?), actually 39 is verb.perception? No, 39 is verb.perception? Let me check WordNet lexicographer file numbers.

 Actually:
 - 2:30:xx is verb.change (come into being, etc.)
 - 2:39:xx is verb.perception? No, 39 is verb.perception? Wait:
   - 2:39 is verb.perception (see, look, appear)
   - 2:30 is verb.change
   - 2:36 is verb.creation
   - 2:41 is verb.social

 Actually, looking at standard WordNet lexicographer file names:
 - 30: verb.change
 - 39: verb.perception
 - 36: verb.creation
 - 41: verb.social

 So:
 - Sense 1 (2:39:00): verb.perception - "give a certain impression"
 - Sense 4 (2:39:01): verb.perception - "seem to be true..."

 Both are under verb.perception.

 The distinction is subtle. Sense 1 is about sensory appearance (looking a certain way), while sense 4 is about epistemic appearance (seeming to be true).

 In "ticket splitting appears to take the pattern", this is epistemic - based on the evidence, it seems to be true that ticket splitting takes this pattern.

 However, the example for sense 1 "This appears to be a very difficult problem" is also epistemic.

 Let me look for more clues. The synonyms:
 - Sense 1: look, seem
 - Sense 4: seem

 Both have "seem". But sense 1 also has "look", which suggests visual appearance, while sense 4 only has "seem", suggesting epistemic modality.

 In the context of the academic paper, the author is making an argument based on evidence. "Appears" here functions as a hedge or evidential indicating that the conclusion is based on the apparent evidence.

 This aligns with sense 4.

 But the syntactic structure aligns with sense 1.

 I need to decide which is the "single best indexed sense".

 Looking at similar WSD datasets (like SemCor or Senseval), "appear" with "to" infinitive and a subject that is not "it" is usually tagged as sense 1 (the first sense).

 For example, in SemCor, "appears to be" is usually sense 1.

 But let me think about the specific content. The sentence is saying that ticket splitting seems to follow a pattern. It's not about visual appearance, but about the evidence suggesting a conclusion.

 Actually, looking carefully at the definition of sense 1: "give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect"

 Does ticket splitting "give a certain impression"? Not really. Ticket splitting is an abstract concept. It doesn't have an "outward aspect" in the perceptual sense.

 But sense 4: "seem to be true, probable, or apparent" - this fits abstract phenomena and conclusions drawn from evidence.

 However, the example for sense 1 is "This appears to be a very difficult problem" - "this" refers to something abstract (the problem), and it "appears to be" difficult.

 So sense 1 can be used with abstract subjects.

 But there's a pattern in WordNet where:
 - appear + adjective = sense 1 (He appears happy)
 - appear + to be + adjective = sense 1 (He appears to be happy)
 - appear + that clause = sense 4 (It appears that he is happy)

 And for "appear + to + verb":
 - If it's about the subject's apparent action/state: sense 1 (He appears to be sleeping)
 - If it's evidential/epistemic: could be sense 4, but usually sense 1 covers this too.

 Actually, looking at the examples provided in the prompt:
 Sense 1: "She seems to be sleeping" - this is evidential (based on observation, she seems to be sleeping)
 Sense 4: "It seems that he is very gifted" - this is also evidential

 The difference is grammatical: sense 1 takes a raised subject ("She seems to be sleeping" = "It seems that she is sleeping"), while sense 4 is used with "it" and "that".

 In "ticket splitting appears to take...", we have a raised subject construction, which is characteristic of sense 1.

 Therefore, I should choose sense 1.

 But wait, I want to check if there's any chance it's sense 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7. No, clearly not.

 So it's between 1 and 4.

 Given the syntactic structure (raised subject with to-infinitive), sense 1 is the appropriate choice.

 Final decision: sense_index: 1

 Actually, let me reconsider one more time. The user says "Do not hedge. Choose the single best indexed sense."

 In many WSD systems, for "X appears to Y" where X is not "it", the tag is sense 1.

 For example:
 "The sun appears to move" - sense 1 (it gives the impression of moving)
 "He appears to be ill" - sense 1

 Sense 4 is reserved for "It appears that..." constructions.

 Therefore, the answer should be 1.

 But I want to check if the specific content about "ticket splitting" appearing to take a pattern could be sense 4 because it's about apparent truth.

 However, the definition of sense 4 specifically mentions "seem to be true, probable, or apparent" and the examples use "it".

 The definition of sense 1 mentions "give a certain impression or have a certain outward aspect" and the examples include "This appears to be..."

 Since "ticket splitting appears to take..." parallels "This appears to be...", sense 1 is correct.

 One final check: could "appear" here mean "come into being" (sense 5)? No, that would be "ticket splitting appears" meaning it comes into existence, but here it's "appears to take", so it's followed by an infinitive.

 Could it be sense 2 with a different interpretation? "Ticket splitting comes into sight to take the pattern"? No, that doesn't make sense.

 So sense 1 is definitely the best choice.

 Wait, I should verify the sense numbers. The user lists:
 1. sense_key=appear%2:39:00::
 2. sense_key=appear%2:30:00::
 3. sense_key=appear%2:30:01::
 4. sense_key=appear%2:39:01::
 5. sense_key=appear%2:30:02::
 6. sense_key=appear%2:36:00::
 7. sense_key=appear%2:41:03::

 So sense 1 is 2:39:00 and sense 4 is 2:39:01.

 In WordNet, appear%2:39:00:: is indeed the "look, seem" sense, and appear%2:39:01:: is the "seem (to be true)" sense.

 Given the structure "ticket splitting appears to take", this is the "seem" sense with a raised subject, which is sense 1.

 I will go with sense_index: 1.

provider: ModelRun


[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: take
Target surface form: take
Context:
The Democratic House attendance rate has not exceeded the Republican House attendance rate since 1959. Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices. An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987 -LRB- when control of that body changed party hands -RRB-, moreover, reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to the disproportionate control Democrats exercise, due to their majority - party status, over other resources such as committee staff. An additional piece of evidence from the Senate: Holding other factors constant, such as incumbency advantages and regional factors, the difference between popular votes for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates in states conducting a Senate election turns out to be a positive function of how onerous the federal government's tax burden is per state -LRB- a progressive tax rate hits higher - income states harder -RRB-. Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more severe. Moreover, ticket splitting appears to <t>take</t> the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level. State government is more typically split along Republican-governor / Democratic-legislature lines than the reverse.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=take%2:41:04:: | definition=carry out | examples=take action; take steps
2. sense_key=take%2:40:06:: | definition=require (time or space) | synonyms=occupy, use up | examples=It took three hours to get to work this morning; This event occupied a very short time
3. sense_key=take%2:38:09:: | definition=take somebody somewhere | synonyms=lead, direct, conduct, guide | examples=We lead him to our chief; can you take me to the main entrance?
4. sense_key=take%2:35:00:: | definition=get into one's hands, take physically | synonyms=get hold of | examples=Take a cookie!; Can you take this bag, please
5. sense_key=take%2:30:01:: | definition=take on a certain form, attribute, or aspect | synonyms=assume, acquire, adopt, take on | examples=His voice took on a sad tone; The story took a new turn
6. sense_key=take%2:31:07:: | definition=interpret something in a certain way; convey a particular meaning or impression | synonyms=read | examples=I read this address as a satire; How should I take this message?
7. sense_key=take%2:38:10:: | definition=take something or somebody with oneself somewhere | synonyms=bring, convey | examples=Bring me the box from the other room; Take these letters to the boss
8. sense_key=take%2:40:00:: | definition=take into one's possession | examples=We are taking an orphan from Romania; I'll take three salmon steaks
9. sense_key=take%2:38:02:: | definition=travel or go by means of a certain kind of transportation, or a certain route | examples=He takes the bus to work; She takes Route 1 to Newark
10. sense_key=take%2:31:01:: | definition=pick out, select, or choose from a number of alternatives | synonyms=choose, select, pick out | examples=Take any one of these cards; Choose a good husband for your daughter
11. sense_key=take%2:40:05:: | definition=receive willingly something given or offered | synonyms=accept, have | examples=The only girl who would have him was the miller's daughter; I won't have this dog in my house!
12. sense_key=take%2:41:00:: | definition=assume, as of positions or roles | synonyms=fill, occupy | examples=She took the job as director of development; he occupies the position of manager
13. sense_key=take%2:31:03:: | definition=take into consideration for exemplifying purposes | synonyms=consider, deal, look at | examples=Take the case of China; Consider the following case
14. sense_key=take%2:42:00:: | definition=require as useful, just, or proper | synonyms=necessitate, ask, postulate, need, require, involve | examples=It takes nerve to do what she did; success usually requires hard work
15. sense_key=take%2:39:00:: | definition=experience or feel or submit to | examples=Take a test; Take the plunge
16. sense_key=take%2:32:02:: | definition=make a film or photograph of something | synonyms=film, shoot | examples=take a scene; shoot a movie
17. sense_key=take%2:30:00:: | definition=remove something concrete, as by lifting, pushing, or taking off, or remove something abstract | synonyms=remove, take away, withdraw | examples=remove a threat; remove a wrapper
18. sense_key=take%2:34:00:: | definition=serve oneself to, or consume regularly | synonyms=consume, ingest, take in, have | examples=Have another bowl of chicken soup!; I don't take sugar in my coffee
19. sense_key=take%2:31:09:: | definition=accept or undergo, often unwillingly | synonyms=submit | examples=We took a pay cut
20. sense_key=take%2:40:15:: | definition=make use of or accept for some purpose | synonyms=accept | examples=take a risk; take an opportunity
21. sense_key=take%2:40:01:: | definition=take by force | examples=Hitler took the Baltic Republics; The army took the fort on the hill
22. sense_key=take%2:38:00:: | definition=occupy or take on | synonyms=assume, strike, take up | examples=He assumes the lotus position; She took her seat on the stage
23. sense_key=take%2:40:07:: | definition=admit into a group or community | synonyms=accept, admit, take on | examples=accept students for graduate study; We'll have to vote on whether or not to admit a new member
24. sense_key=take%2:30:08:: | definition=ascertain or determine by measuring, computing or take a reading from a dial | examples=take a pulse; A reading was taken of the earth's tremors
25. sense_key=take%2:31:02:: | definition=be a student of a certain subject | synonyms=learn, study, read | examples=She is reading for the bar exam
26. sense_key=take%2:32:00:: | definition=take as an undesirable consequence of some event or state of affairs | synonyms=claim, exact | examples=the accident claimed three lives; The hard work took its toll on her
27. sense_key=take%2:38:05:: | definition=head into a specified direction | synonyms=make | examples=The escaped convict took to the hills; We made for the mountains
28. sense_key=take%2:33:09:: | definition=point or cause to go (blows, weapons, or objects such as photographic equipment) towards | synonyms=aim, train, take aim, direct | examples=Please don't aim at your little brother!; He trained his gun on the burglar
29. sense_key=take%2:30:09:: | definition=be seized or affected in a specified way | examples=take sick; be taken drunk
30. sense_key=take%2:42:10:: | definition=have with oneself; have on one's person | synonyms=carry, pack | examples=She always takes an umbrella; I always carry money
31. sense_key=take%2:40:03:: | definition=engage for service under a term of contract | synonyms=lease, rent, hire, charter, engage | examples=We took an apartment on a quiet street; Let's rent a car
32. sense_key=take%2:40:04:: | definition=receive or obtain regularly | synonyms=subscribe, subscribe to | examples=We take the Times every day
33. sense_key=take%2:40:02:: | definition=buy, select | examples=I'll take a pound of that sausage
34. sense_key=take%2:40:08:: | definition=to get into a position of having, e.g., safety, comfort | examples=take shelter from the storm
35. sense_key=take%2:35:14:: | definition=have sex with; archaic use | synonyms=have | examples=He had taken this woman when she was most vulnerable
36. sense_key=take%2:32:09:: | definition=lay claim to; as of an idea | synonyms=claim | examples=She took credit for the whole idea
37. sense_key=take%2:42:03:: | definition=be designed to hold or take | synonyms=accept | examples=This surface will not take the dye
38. sense_key=take%2:42:15:: | definition=be capable of holding or containing | synonyms=contain, hold | examples=This box won't take all the items; The flask holds one gallon
39. sense_key=take%2:41:13:: | definition=develop a habit | examples=He took to visiting bars
40. sense_key=take%2:38:11:: | definition=proceed along in a vehicle | synonyms=drive | examples=We drive the turnpike to work
41. sense_key=take%2:33:08:: | definition=obtain by winning | examples=Winner takes all; He took first prize
42. sense_key=take%2:29:08:: | definition=be stricken by an illness, fall victim to an illness | synonyms=contract, get | examples=He got AIDS; She came down with pneumonia

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

reasoning_content:
The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) on the word "take" in the given context.

 Context analysis:
 The sentence is: "Moreover, ticket splitting appears to <t>take</t> the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level."

 The context is about political science, specifically about ticket splitting (voting for candidates of different parties for different offices in the same election). The sentence says that ticket splitting "takes" the same peculiar pattern at the state level as at the federal level.

 Looking at the meaning: "take" here means to assume, adopt, or exhibit a certain form, pattern, or characteristic. It's about taking on a certain form or aspect.

 Let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. carry out - "take action" - doesn't fit
 2. require (time or space) - doesn't fit
 3. take somebody somewhere - doesn't fit
 4. get into one's hands - physical taking - doesn't fit
 5. take on a certain form, attribute, or aspect - synonyms: assume, acquire, adopt, take on - examples: "His voice took on a sad tone"; "The story took a new turn"
    - This seems promising. "Ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern" = ticket splitting appears to assume/adopt/exhibit the same peculiar pattern.
 6. interpret something - doesn't fit
 7. take something somewhere - doesn't fit
 8. take into possession - doesn't fit
 9. travel by transportation - doesn't fit
 10. pick out, select - doesn't fit
 11. receive willingly - doesn't fit
 12. assume positions or roles - this is about assuming positions (jobs), not patterns
 13. take into consideration - doesn't fit
 14. require - doesn't fit
 15. experience - doesn't fit
 16. make a film - doesn't fit
 17. remove - doesn't fit
 18. consume - doesn't fit
 19. accept or undergo - doesn't fit
 20. make use of - doesn't fit
 21. take by force - doesn't fit
 22. occupy or take on - synonyms: assume, strike, take up - examples: "He assumes the lotus position"; "She took her seat"
    - This could be close, but it's more about physical positions/postures
 23. admit into group - doesn't fit
 24. ascertain - doesn't fit
 25. be a student - doesn't fit
 26. take as consequence - doesn't fit
 27. head into direction - doesn't fit
 28. aim - doesn't fit
 29. be seized - doesn't fit
 30. have with oneself - doesn't fit
 31. engage for service - doesn't fit
 32. receive regularly - doesn't fit
 33. buy - doesn't fit
 34. get into position - doesn't fit
 35. have sex - doesn't fit
 36. lay claim - doesn't fit
 37. be designed to hold - doesn't fit
 38. be capable of holding - doesn't fit
 39. develop a habit - "He took to visiting bars" - this is close but the syntax is different ("take to" vs "take")
 40. proceed along - doesn't fit
 41. obtain by winning - doesn't fit
 42. be stricken by illness - doesn't fit

 The best fit seems to be sense 5: "take on a certain form, attribute, or aspect" with synonyms assume, acquire, adopt, take on.

 The sentence "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern" means that ticket splitting exhibits or assumes the same pattern. This matches the examples like "The story took a new turn" or "His voice took on a sad tone."

 Sense 22 "occupy or take on" is also about assuming, but it's specifically about physical positions ("assume the lotus position", "take her seat"). The context here is about abstract patterns, not physical positions.

 Sense 5 is the abstract "take on a form/aspect" sense.

 Therefore, the answer should be sense_index: 5.

 Wait, let me double-check the sense numbering. The user lists them as:
 1. sense_key=take%2:41:04::
 2. sense_key=take%2:40:06::
 ...
 5. sense_key=take%2:30:01::

 So sense 5 corresponds to take%2:30:01:: which is "take on a certain form, attribute, or aspect".

 Yes, that's the one.

 Actually, looking at sense 39: "develop a habit" - "He took to visiting bars". The structure "take to" is different from just "take". In our sentence, it's "take the same peculiar pattern", not "take to".

 So sense 5 is definitely the best choice.

 The JSON should be: {"sense_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: same
Target surface form: same
Context:
The Democratic House attendance rate has not exceeded the Republican House attendance rate since 1959. Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices. An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987 -LRB- when control of that body changed party hands -RRB-, moreover, reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to the disproportionate control Democrats exercise, due to their majority - party status, over other resources such as committee staff. An additional piece of evidence from the Senate: Holding other factors constant, such as incumbency advantages and regional factors, the difference between popular votes for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates in states conducting a Senate election turns out to be a positive function of how onerous the federal government's tax burden is per state -LRB- a progressive tax rate hits higher - income states harder -RRB-. Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more severe. Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the <t>same</t> peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level. State government is more typically split along Republican-governor / Democratic-legislature lines than the reverse.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=same%3:00:02:: | definition=same in identity | examples=the same man I saw yesterday; never wore the same dress twice
2. sense_key=same%3:00:00:: | definition=closely similar or comparable in kind or quality or quantity or degree | examples=curtains the same color as the walls; two girls of the same age
3. sense_key=same%3:00:04:: | definition=equal in amount or value | synonyms=like | examples=like amounts; equivalent amounts
4. sense_key=same%5:00:00:unchanged:00 | definition=unchanged in character or nature | examples=the village stayed the same; his attitude is the same as ever

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

reasoning_content:
The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation for the word "same" in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 The text is discussing political science research about ticket splitting patterns. The specific sentence is: "Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level."

 The word "same" here is modifying "peculiar pattern" and is being used in a comparative structure "same... as...".

 Let me look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=same%3:00:02:: | definition=same in identity | examples=the same man I saw yesterday; never wore the same dress twice
    - This refers to identity, like "the very same person". Not quite right here.

 2. sense_key=same%3:00:00:: | definition=closely similar or comparable in kind or quality or quantity or degree | examples=curtains the same color as the walls; two girls of the same age
    - This refers to similarity or comparability. The example "curtains the same color as the walls" suggests this is about being similar in character/quality.

 3. sense_key=same%3:00:04:: | definition=equal in amount or value | synonyms=like | examples=like amounts; equivalent amounts
    - This is about equality in quantity or value.

 4. sense_key=same%5:00:00:unchanged:00 | definition=unchanged in character or nature | examples=the village stayed the same; his attitude is the same as ever
    - This is about remaining unchanged over time.

 Now, looking at the specific usage: "take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level"

 This is saying that the pattern at the state level is similar/comparable to the pattern at the federal level. It's not saying they are identical in identity (sense 1), nor equal in amount (sense 3), nor unchanged over time (sense 4). It's saying they are similar in kind or character.

 The structure "same... as..." with "pattern" suggests similarity in type or character. This aligns with sense 2: "closely similar or comparable in kind or quality".

 The example "curtains the same color as the walls" is analogous - the curtains and walls share a similar quality (color). Here, the state and federal levels share a similar pattern (ticket splitting behavior).

 Sense 1 would imply they are literally the identical pattern (one and the same), but the context suggests two different levels of government exhibiting similar patterns.

 Sense 2 seems to be the best fit: "closely similar or comparable in kind or quality".

 Wait, let me double-check the WordNet sense keys. The user provided:
 1. same%3:00:02:: - same in identity
 2. same%3:00:00:: - closely similar or comparable...
 3. same%3:00:04:: - equal in amount or value
 4. same%5:00:00:unchanged:00 - unchanged in character or nature

 In the sentence: "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level"

 This means the pattern at state level is similar to the pattern at federal level. This is sense 2.

 Actually, looking at the examples for sense 2: "curtains the same color as the walls; two girls of the same age" - these are about having the same quality/characteristic, not necessarily being identical entities.

 The phrase "same peculiar pattern" means the pattern is similar or comparable between the two levels.

 So the answer should be sense_index: 2.

 Wait, I need to be careful. In WordNet, "same" can be tricky. Let me think about whether this could be sense 1 (same in identity).

 If I say "the same pattern", does it mean:
 A) The identical pattern (one pattern existing in two places)? No, that doesn't make sense because state and federal are different.
 B) A pattern that is the same (similar) in both places? Yes.

 So it's sense 2.

 Or could it be sense 4 (unchanged)? No, because it's comparing two different things (state vs federal), not the same thing over time.

 Could it be sense 3 (equal in amount)? No, we're talking about a pattern, not a quantity.

 So sense 2 is correct.

 The index requested is the number in the list provided:
 1. sense_key=same%3:00:02::
 2. sense_key=same%3:00:00::
 3. sense_key=same%3:00:04::
 4. sense_key=same%5:00:00:unchanged:00

 So the answer is {"sense_index": 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: level
Target surface form: level
Context:
The Democratic House attendance rate has not exceeded the Republican House attendance rate since 1959. Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices. An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987 -LRB- when control of that body changed party hands -RRB-, moreover, reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to the disproportionate control Democrats exercise, due to their majority - party status, over other resources such as committee staff. An additional piece of evidence from the Senate: Holding other factors constant, such as incumbency advantages and regional factors, the difference between popular votes for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates in states conducting a Senate election turns out to be a positive function of how onerous the federal government's tax burden is per state -LRB- a progressive tax rate hits higher - income states harder -RRB-. Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more severe. Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government <t>level</t> as it does at the federal level. State government is more typically split along Republican-governor / Democratic-legislature lines than the reverse.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=level%1:07:00:: | definition=a position on a scale of intensity or amount or quality | synonyms=degree, grade | examples=a moderate grade of intelligence; a high level of care is required
2. sense_key=level%1:26:01:: | definition=a relative position or degree of value in a graded group | synonyms=grade, tier | examples=lumber of the highest grade
3. sense_key=level%1:26:00:: | definition=a specific identifiable position in a continuum or series or especially in a process | synonyms=degree, stage, point | examples=a remarkable degree of frankness; at what stage are the social sciences?
4. sense_key=level%1:07:01:: | definition=height above ground | examples=the water reached ankle level; the pictures were at the same level
5. sense_key=level%1:06:00:: | definition=indicator that establishes the horizontal when a bubble is centered in a tube of liquid | synonyms=spirit level
6. sense_key=level%1:06:03:: | definition=a flat surface at right angles to a plumb line | synonyms=horizontal surface | examples=park the car on the level
7. sense_key=level%1:09:00:: | definition=an abstract place usually conceived as having depth | synonyms=layer, stratum | examples=a good actor communicates on several levels; a simile has at least two layers of meaning
8. sense_key=level%1:06:01:: | definition=a structure consisting of a room or set of rooms at a single position along a vertical scale | synonyms=floor, storey, story | examples=what level is the office on?

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

reasoning_content:
 The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation on the word "level" in the given context.

 Context analysis:
 The sentence is: "Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government <t>level</t> as it does at the federal level."

 The context discusses political analysis comparing state government and federal government. The phrase "at the state government level" and "at the federal level" suggests a hierarchical or layered structure of government.

 Looking at the candidate senses:

 1. level%1:07:00:: - a position on a scale of intensity or amount or quality (degree, grade)
    - Examples: "a moderate grade of intelligence", "a high level of care"
    - This seems to refer to measurable quantities or qualities, not governmental layers.

 2. level%1:26:01:: - a relative position or degree of value in a graded group (grade, tier)
    - Examples: "lumber of the highest grade"
    - This is about ranking or grading within a group.

 3. level%1:26:00:: - a specific identifiable position in a continuum or series or especially in a process (degree, stage, point)
    - Examples: "a remarkable degree of frankness", "at what stage are the social sciences?"
    - This refers to stages or steps in a process.

 4. level%1:07:01:: - height above ground
    - Examples: "the water reached ankle level"
    - Physical height, not applicable here.

 5. level%1:06:00:: - indicator that establishes the horizontal (spirit level)
    - Physical tool, not applicable.

 6. level%1:06:03:: - a flat surface at right angles to a plumb line (horizontal surface)
    - Physical surface, not applicable.

 7. level%1:09:00:: - an abstract place usually conceived as having depth (layer, stratum)
    - Examples: "a good actor communicates on several levels", "a simile has at least two layers of meaning"
    - This refers to layers or strata of meaning, organization, or abstract structure.
    - "State government level" vs "federal level" fits this sense - they are different layers/strata of government.

 8. level%1:06:01:: - a structure consisting of a room or set of rooms at a single position along a vertical scale (floor, storey, story)
    - Examples: "what level is the office on?"
    - Physical building floors, not applicable to government structure.

 The phrase "at the state government level" and "at the federal level" clearly refers to different layers or strata of government - the state layer vs the federal layer. This matches sense 7: "an abstract place usually conceived as having depth" with synonyms "layer, stratum".

 The example "a good actor communicates on several levels" parallels "at the state government level" - both refer to different layers or strata of a system (communication layers vs government layers).

 Therefore, the best sense is sense_key=level%1:09:00::, which is listed as sense index 7.

 Wait, looking at the list again:
 1. sense_key=level%1:07:00::
 2. sense_key=level%1:26:01::
 3. sense_key=level%1:26:00::
 4. sense_key=level%1:07:01::
 5. sense_key=level%1:06:00::
 6. sense_key=level%1:06:03::
 7. sense_key=level%1:09:00::
 8. sense_key=level%1:06:01::

 So sense 7 is the one with definition "an abstract place usually conceived as having depth".

 The context is about comparing patterns of ticket splitting at different "levels" of government - state vs federal. This is clearly using "level" to mean a layer or stratum of an organizational structure.

 Therefore, the answer should be {"sense_index": 7}.

provider: DigitalOcean


[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: federal
Target surface form: federal
Context:
The Democratic House attendance rate has not exceeded the Republican House attendance rate since 1959. Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices. An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987 -LRB- when control of that body changed party hands -RRB-, moreover, reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to the disproportionate control Democrats exercise, due to their majority - party status, over other resources such as committee staff. An additional piece of evidence from the Senate: Holding other factors constant, such as incumbency advantages and regional factors, the difference between popular votes for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates in states conducting a Senate election turns out to be a positive function of how onerous the federal government's tax burden is per state -LRB- a progressive tax rate hits higher - income states harder -RRB-. Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more severe. Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the <t>federal</t> level. State government is more typically split along Republican-governor / Democratic-legislature lines than the reverse.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=federal%5:00:00:national:01 | definition=national; especially in reference to the government of the United States as distinct from that of its member units | examples=the Federal Bureau of Investigation; federal courts
2. sense_key=federal%3:01:02:: | definition=of or relating to the central government of a federation | examples=a federal district is one set aside as the seat of the national government
3. sense_key=federal%5:00:00:northern:02 | definition=being of or having to do with the northern United States and those loyal to the Union during the American Civil War | synonyms=Union | examples=Union soldiers; Federal forces
4. sense_key=federal%3:00:00:: | definition=characterized by or constituting a form of government in which power is divided between one central and several regional authorities | examples=a federal system like that of the United States; federal governments often evolved out of confederations

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

reasoning_content:
The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation on the word "federal" in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 - The text discusses political science topics: House attendance rates, staffing decisions, Senate elections, presidential vs senatorial candidates, tax burden, etc.
 - The specific sentence containing "federal" is: "Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more severe. Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the <t>federal</t> level."
 - The phrase "at the federal level" is being contrasted with "at the state government level"
 - This is clearly referring to the national/central government level vs state/local government level

 Now let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=federal%5:00:00:national:01 | definition=national; especially in reference to the government of the United States as distinct from that of its member units | examples=the Federal Bureau of Investigation; federal courts
    - This seems to fit well. It refers to the national government (US federal government) as distinct from state governments.

 2. sense_key=federal%3:01:02:: | definition=of or relating to the central government of a federation | examples=a federal district is one set aside as the seat of the national government
    - This is also close. It relates to central government of a federation.

 3. sense_key=federal%5:00:00:northern:02 | definition=being of or having to do with the northern United States and those loyal to the Union during the American Civil War | synonyms=Union | examples=Union soldiers; Federal forces
    - This is clearly wrong. The context is not about the Civil War.

 4. sense_key=federal%3:00:00:: | definition=characterized by or constituting a form of government in which power is divided between one central and several regional authorities | examples=a federal system like that of the United States; federal governments often evolved out of confederations
    - This refers to the system of government (federalism), not specifically to the national level as opposed to state level.

 Now, between sense 1 and sense 2:
 - Sense 1: "national; especially in reference to the government of the United States as distinct from that of its member units"
 - Sense 2: "of or relating to the central government of a federation"

 The context is comparing "state government level" vs "federal level". This is specifically about the US government structure where "federal" means the national government as distinct from state governments.

 Sense 1 explicitly mentions "as distinct from that of its member units" which matches the contrast with "state government level" in the text.

 Sense 2 is more general about central government of any federation.

 Sense 1 seems more specific and appropriate for this context, especially given the examples "the Federal Bureau of Investigation; federal courts" which show the US federal government usage.

 However, looking at the WordNet sense keys:
 - sense 1: federal%5:00:00:national:01 (adjective satellite, similar to national)
 - sense 2: federal%3:01:02:: (adjective, relating to central government)
 - sense 4: federal%3:00:00:: (adjective, characterized by federal system)

 Actually, looking at the context again: "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the <t>federal</t> level."

 This is clearly using "federal" to mean the national government level (US federal government) as opposed to state government level.

 Sense 1 definition: "national; especially in reference to the government of the United States as distinct from that of its member units"

 This matches perfectly. The contrast is between state government and federal (national) government.

 Sense 2 is "of or relating to the central government of a federation" - this is also correct but more general. However, the specific contrast with "state government level" suggests the US-specific sense (sense 1) is better.

 But wait, looking at the examples for sense 2: "a federal district is one set aside as the seat of the national government" - this also fits.

 Let me reconsider. In WordNet:
 - Sense 1 (federal%5:00:00:national:01) is an adjective satellite (similar to national)
 - Sense 2 (federal%3:01:02::) is an adjective (relating to central government)
 - Sense 4 (federal%3:00:00::) is an adjective (characterized by federal system)

 The phrase "at the federal level" is a common way to refer to the national government level in the US system.

 Sense 1 seems best because:
 1. It explicitly mentions "as distinct from that of its member units" which parallels the contrast with "state government"
 2. The context is clearly about US politics (Democratic House, Republican, Senate, FBI not mentioned but the context is US government)
 3. Sense 1 is indexed as similar to "national"

 Actually, looking carefully at the sense keys:
 - Sense 1: federal%5:00:00:national:01 - this means it's an adjective satellite, similar to "national"
 - Sense 2: federal%3:01:02:: - this is a relational adjective (pertainym)

 In the context "at the federal level", "federal" is describing "level", and it's being contrasted with "state government level". This is exactly the usage in sense 1: the US federal government as distinct from member units (states).

 Sense 4 is about the system of government being federal (power divided), not about the specific level of government.

 So I think sense 1 is the best choice.

 Wait, I should double-check the WordNet structure. Usually:
 - Sense 1: relating to the central government of a federation (the most common usage)
 - Sense 2: national (US specific)
 - Sense 3: Union (Civil War)
 - Sense 4: characterized by federal system

 But the user provided:
 1. sense_key=federal%5:00:00:national:01 | definition=national; especially in reference to the government of the United States as distinct from that of its member units
 2. sense_key=federal%3:01:02:: | definition=of or relating to the central government of a federation
 4. sense_key=federal%3:00:00:: | definition=characterized by or constituting a form of government...

 So the user has indexed them as:
 1. national/US specific
 2. relating to central government of federation
 3. Civil War
 4. characterized by federal system

 In the phrase "at the federal level", this is referring to the level of the central/national government. Both 1 and 2 could work, but 1 is more specific to the US context which is clearly what this text is about (Democratic House, Republican, Senate, etc.).

 The text is definitely about US politics. The contrast between "state government level" and "federal level" in US political science typically refers to the distinction between state and national/federal government.

 Therefore, sense 1 is the best fit.

 But let me reconsider sense 2. "of or relating to the central government of a federation" - the US is a federation, so the US federal government is the central government of a federation. This also fits.

 However, sense 1 specifically mentions "as distinct from that of its member units" which is exactly the relationship being discussed (federal vs state).

 Also, looking at the examples:
 - Sense 1: "the Federal Bureau of Investigation; federal courts" - these are US federal institutions
 - Sense 2: "a federal district is one set aside as the seat of the national government" - this is also US specific (Washington D.C.)

 Actually, both seem very close. But sense 1 emphasizes "national" and "distinct from member units", which captures the contrast in the text better than sense 2 which just says "relating to central government".

 The phrase "federal level" in US political discourse almost always means the national government level as opposed to state or local.

 I think sense 1 is the intended answer.

 Wait, I should check if there's any possibility it's sense 4. Sense 4 is "characterized by or constituting a form of government in which power is divided..." - this would be "federal system" or describing the government as federal. But "at the federal level" is not describing the system, it's referring to the specific level of government (the national one).

 So sense 4 is out.

 Sense 3 is definitely out (Civil War).

 Between 1 and 2, I'll go with 1.

 Actually, looking at standard WordNet ordering:
 - federal%3:00:00:: is usually the first sense (characterized by federal form of government)
 - federal%3:01:00:: or similar is relating to central government
 - federal%5:00:00:national:01 is the national/US sense

 But the user has numbered them 1, 2, 3, 4 in the order presented.

 The user says:
 1. sense_key=federal%5:00:00:national:01...
 2. sense_key=federal%3:01:02::...
 3. sense_key=federal%5:00:00:northern:02...
 4. sense_key=federal%3:00:00::...

 So the user is using these indices.

 Given the context is comparing state government level vs federal level in the US political system, and the text discusses US political institutions (House, Senate, FBI not mentioned but federal courts and taxes), sense 1 which specifically mentions "the government of the United States as distinct from that of its member units" is the best match.

 The answer should be {"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: level
Target surface form: level
Context:
The Democratic House attendance rate has not exceeded the Republican House attendance rate since 1959. Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices. An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987 -LRB- when control of that body changed party hands -RRB-, moreover, reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to the disproportionate control Democrats exercise, due to their majority - party status, over other resources such as committee staff. An additional piece of evidence from the Senate: Holding other factors constant, such as incumbency advantages and regional factors, the difference between popular votes for Republican presidential and senatorial candidates in states conducting a Senate election turns out to be a positive function of how onerous the federal government's tax burden is per state -LRB- a progressive tax rate hits higher - income states harder -RRB-. Put more simply, GOP candidates for president are looked on more kindly by voters than Republican candidates for the Senate when the prisoner's sentence is more severe. Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal <t>level</t>. State government is more typically split along Republican-governor / Democratic-legislature lines than the reverse.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=level%1:07:00:: | definition=a position on a scale of intensity or amount or quality | synonyms=degree, grade | examples=a moderate grade of intelligence; a high level of care is required
2. sense_key=level%1:26:01:: | definition=a relative position or degree of value in a graded group | synonyms=grade, tier | examples=lumber of the highest grade
3. sense_key=level%1:26:00:: | definition=a specific identifiable position in a continuum or series or especially in a process | synonyms=degree, stage, point | examples=a remarkable degree of frankness; at what stage are the social sciences?
4. sense_key=level%1:07:01:: | definition=height above ground | examples=the water reached ankle level; the pictures were at the same level
5. sense_key=level%1:06:00:: | definition=indicator that establishes the horizontal when a bubble is centered in a tube of liquid | synonyms=spirit level
6. sense_key=level%1:06:03:: | definition=a flat surface at right angles to a plumb line | synonyms=horizontal surface | examples=park the car on the level
7. sense_key=level%1:09:00:: | definition=an abstract place usually conceived as having depth | synonyms=layer, stratum | examples=a good actor communicates on several levels; a simile has at least two layers of meaning
8. sense_key=level%1:06:01:: | definition=a structure consisting of a room or set of rooms at a single position along a vertical scale | synonyms=floor, storey, story | examples=what level is the office on?

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

reasoning_content:
The user wants me to perform Word Sense Disambiguation for the word "level" in the given context.

 Context analysis:
 The text is discussing political science, specifically about ticket splitting patterns in government. The key sentence is: "Moreover, ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal <t>level</t>."

 Here, "level" refers to a stratum or layer of government hierarchy - specifically comparing "state government level" with "federal level". This is talking about different tiers or strata of government organization.

 Looking at the candidate senses:

 1. level%1:07:00:: - position on a scale of intensity/amount/quality (degree, grade) - not quite right, not about intensity
 2. level%1:26:01:: - relative position or degree of value in a graded group (grade, tier) - possible, but seems more about quality grades
 3. level%1:26:00:: - specific identifiable position in a continuum or series or process (degree, stage, point) - possible, but "federal level" as a stage?
 4. level%1:07:01:: - height above ground - no, not physical height
 5. level%1:06:00:: - spirit level tool - no
 6. level%1:06:03:: - flat surface - no
 7. level%1:09:00:: - an abstract place usually conceived as having depth (layer, stratum) - examples: "a good actor communicates on several levels", "a simile has at least two layers of meaning". This fits well with "federal level" and "state government level" as different strata or layers of government.
 8. level%1:06:01:: - floor of a building - no, not physical floors

 The best fit seems to be sense 7: "an abstract place usually conceived as having depth" with synonyms "layer, stratum". The context is comparing different levels (layers/strata) of government: federal vs state. This is an abstract hierarchical concept.

 Wait, let me reconsider sense 3: "a specific identifiable position in a continuum or series or especially in a process" - examples include "at what stage are the social sciences?" This could potentially fit "federal level" as a position in a series.

 But sense 7 with "layer, stratum" seems more apt for governmental levels (federal, state, local). These are typically described as strata or layers of government.

 Let me look at sense 1 again: "a position on a scale of intensity or amount or quality" - examples: "a high level of care", "a moderate grade of intelligence". This is often used for abstract quantities.

 Actually, looking carefully at the context: "at the federal level" and "at the state government level" - this is referring to tiers or strata of government organization.

 Sense 7: "an abstract place usually conceived as having depth" with synonyms layer, stratum. The examples given are "a good actor communicates on several levels" and "a simile has at least two layers of meaning." This matches the usage of "federal level" as a stratum of government.

 However, sense 3 is also strong: "a specific identifiable position in a continuum or series" - this could view federal vs state as positions in the continuum of government hierarchy.

 But sense 7 (layer/stratum) is the standard way to refer to "federal level", "state level", "local level" in political science contexts. These are layers of governance.

 Wait, I should check sense 1 vs sense 7 more carefully. In WordNet, sense 1 (level%1:07:00::) is the most common sense, often used for "high level", "low level" regarding intensity or quality.

 But "federal level" is not about intensity. It's about a tier or stratum of government.

 Let me look at the examples for sense 7 again: "a good actor communicates on several levels" - this is metaphorical, about layers of meaning or depth.

 For sense 3: "a remarkable degree of frankness" - this seems more like sense 1 actually.

 Actually, looking at standard WordNet entries:
 - level%1:09:00:: is indeed "layer, stratum"
 - level%1:26:00:: is "degree, stage, point"

 In the phrase "at the federal level", we are talking about a stratum or tier of the governmental system.

 However, I need to be careful. In many WSD datasets, "at the ... level" often maps to sense 1 (the quantity/intensity sense) or sense 7.

 But looking at the specific glosses provided:
 Sense 7: "an abstract place usually conceived as having depth" - synonyms: layer, stratum
 This fits "federal level" as an abstract stratum of government.

 Sense 1: "a position on a scale of intensity or amount or quality" - this would be for things like "noise level", "stress level".

 The context is clearly about layers/strata of government: federal vs state.

 Therefore, sense 7 (index 7) appears to be the correct choice.

 Wait, I need to check if there's any other interpretation. "State government level" - could this mean the floor of a building? No, context makes it clear it's about the abstract governmental tier.

 Could it be sense 2? "a relative position or degree of value in a graded group" - this is for things like "top grade lumber", quality grades.

 Could it be sense 8? "a structure consisting of a room or set of rooms..." - no, that's physical floors.

 So it's between sense 3 and sense 7 primarily.

 Sense 3: "a specific identifiable position in a continuum or series or especially in a process"
 Sense 7: "an abstract place usually conceived as having depth"

 "Federal level" and "state level" are typically considered "strata" or "layers" of government - different tiers. This aligns with sense 7 (layer, stratum).

 Also, the phrase "at the federal level" is parallel to "on several levels" in the example for sense 7.

 I think sense 7 is the best match.

 But let me double-check the indexing. The user lists:
 1. sense_key=level%1:07:00::
 2. sense_key=level%1:26:01::
 3. sense_key=level%1:26:00::
 4. sense_key=level%1:07:01::
 5. sense_key=level%1:06:00::
 6. sense_key=level%1:06:03::
 7. sense_key=level%1:09:00::
 8. sense_key=level%1:06:01::

 So sense 7 is level%1:09:00:: which is the layer/stratum sense.

 Yes, this is correct.

 Actually, looking at the context once more: "ticket splitting appears to take the same peculiar pattern at the state government level as it does at the federal level."

 This is comparing two different tiers/strata of government. This is definitely the "layer/stratum" sense.

 Final check: Could it be sense 1? "a position on a scale..." - Some might argue government levels are positions on a scale of centralization, but "layer/stratum" is the more standard lexical semantic classification for this usage in WordNet.

 The example for sense 7 "a good actor communicates on several levels" shows that "levels" can mean different planes or strata of communication/organization, which parallels "federal level" vs "state level" as different strata of government.

 Therefore, the answer is sense index 7.

provider: AtlasCloud