[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: delete
Target surface form: deleted
Context:
It often is preceded by the development of polyps in the bowel, which in some cases become increasingly malignant in identifiable stages -- progressing from less severe to deadly -- as though a cascade of genetic damage might be occurring. Dr. Vogelstein and a doctoral student, Eric Fearon, began months of tedious and often frustrating probing of the chromosomes searching for signs of genetic damage. They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then <t>deleted</t>, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=delete%2:35:00:: | definition=remove or make invisible | synonyms=cancel | examples=Please delete my name from your list
2. sense_key=delete%2:32:00:: | definition=wipe out digitally or magnetically recorded information | synonyms=erase | examples=Who erased the files form my hard disk?
3. sense_key=delete%2:30:00:: | definition=cut or eliminate | synonyms=edit, blue-pencil | examples=she edited the juiciest scenes

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 "deleted" in the given context. The target lemma is "delete" and the surface form is "deleted".

Let me analyze the context:
- The text is about genetic research on colon cancer development
- It discusses genetic deletions in chromosomes
- Specifically: "If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy"
- This is talking about genetic material being removed or lost from the genome

Now let's look at the candidate senses:

1. sense_key=delete%2:35:00:: | definition=remove or make invisible | synonyms=cancel | examples=Please delete my name from your list
   - This seems to be about removing something from a list or making something invisible/disappear
   - The example is about removing a name from a list

2. sense_key=delete%2:32:00:: | definition=wipe out digitally or magnetically recorded information | synonyms=erase | examples=Who erased the files form my hard disk?
   - This is specifically about digital/magnetic information (computers, hard disks)
   - The context is about genetic material, not digital information

3. sense_key=delete%2:30:00:: | definition=cut or eliminate | synonyms=edit, blue-pencil | examples=she edited the juiciest scenes
   - This is about editing text or content (like a movie or document)
   - "Blue-pencil" refers to editing written material

Wait, looking at the context again: "If both copies of a second gene were then deleted"

In genetics, when we talk about genes being deleted, we're talking about genetic deletion - the removal or loss of genetic material from a chromosome. This is a biological/medical context.

Looking at the senses:
- Sense 1: "remove or make invisible" - this is the most general sense of removing something
- Sense 2: specifically digital/magnetic recording
- Sense 3: editing text/film

In the biological context of genetics, when a gene is deleted, it means it's removed from the chromosome. This aligns most closely with sense 1 "remove or make invisible" - though "make invisible" is a bit odd for genes, "remove" fits perfectly.

Actually, looking more carefully at WordNet's organization:
- delete%2:35:00:: is likely the general sense of removal
- delete%2:32:00:: is specifically for digital media
- delete%2:30:00:: is for editing

In genetics, "deletion" refers to the removal of genetic material. The verb "delete" in this context means to remove the gene from the genome.

Sense 1 (remove or make invisible) seems most appropriate because:
1. It's the general sense of removal
2. Sense 2 is too specific to digital media
3. Sense 3 is about editing text/media

The context is about genetic material being removed from chromosomes, not about computers or editing documents.

So the answer should be sense_index: 1.

Wait, let me double-check the sense keys. The format is:
delete%2:35:00::
delete%2:32:00::
delete%2:30:00::

In WordNet, the numbers after %2: usually indicate the lexicographer file (noun, verb, etc.) and then the specific sense.

But looking at the definitions:
1. remove or make invisible - general removal
2. wipe out digitally... - specific to digital
3. cut or eliminate - specific to editing

The genetic context involves removing/eliminating genes from chromosomes. This is a biological removal.

Between sense 1 and sense 3:
- Sense 3 mentions "cut or eliminate" and synonyms "edit, blue-pencil" - this is clearly about editing written or recorded material (movies, text)
- Sense 1 mentions "remove or make invisible" and synonyms "cancel" - this is more general removal

Genetic deletion is about the removal of genetic material. It's not "editing" in the sense of blue-penciling a manuscript (sense 3), and it's not wiping a hard drive (sense 2). It's the removal of something from a biological structure.

Therefore, sense 1 is the best fit.

Actually, looking at the example for sense 1: "Please delete my name from your list" - this is removing an item from a collection/list. A gene being deleted from a chromosome is analogous - removing an item from the genetic sequence.

So yes, sense 1 is correct.


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: polyp
Target surface form: polyps
Context:
It often is preceded by the development of polyps in the bowel, which in some cases become increasingly malignant in identifiable stages -- progressing from less severe to deadly -- as though a cascade of genetic damage might be occurring. Dr. Vogelstein and a doctoral student, Eric Fearon, began months of tedious and often frustrating probing of the chromosomes searching for signs of genetic damage. They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the <t>polyps</t> would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=polyp%1:26:00:: | definition=a small vascular growth on the surface of a mucous membrane | synonyms=polypus
2. sense_key=polyp%1:05:00:: | definition=one of two forms that coelenterates take (e.g. a hydra or coral): usually sedentary with a hollow cylindrical body usually with a ring of tentacles around the mouth | examples=in some species of coelenterate, polyps are a phase in the life cycle that alternates with a medusoid phase

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 "polyps" (target lemma: polyp) in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 - The text discusses medical/biological context about bowel/colon cancer
 - It mentions "polyps in the bowel"
 - It talks about benign polyps vs malignant cells
 - It mentions colon cancer development
 - It describes genetic damage leading from benign polyps to malignancy

 Now let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=polyp%1:26:00:: | definition=a small vascular growth on the surface of a mucous membrane | synonyms=polypus
    - This is the medical definition - an abnormal growth of tissue projecting from a mucous membrane
    - Commonly found in the colon (bowel), rectum, etc.
    - Can be benign or become malignant (cancerous)
    - Synonym "polypus" is the medical term

 2. sense_key=polyp%1:05:00:: | definition=one of two forms that coelenterates take (e.g. a hydra or coral): usually sedentary with a hollow cylindrical body usually with a ring of tentacles around the mouth | examples=in some species of coelenterate, polyps are a phase in the life cycle that alternates with a medusoid phase
    - This is the zoological definition referring to cnidarians (coelenterates) like coral, hydra, jellyfish life cycles
    - This is clearly not the meaning in the context about bowel cancer and colon tissue

 The context is clearly medical - discussing bowel, colon cancer, benign vs malignant growths, genetic damage in cells. This matches sense 1 perfectly.

 Sense 1 is indexed as sense 1 (polyp%1:26:00::), and sense 2 is indexed as sense 2 (polyp%1:05:00::).

 Wait, I need to check the indexing. The user asks for the "sense_index" in the JSON output. Looking at the format:
 - sense_key=polyp%1:26:00:: - this appears to be sense 1
 - sense_key=polyp%1:05:00:: - this appears to be sense 2

 But I should verify what "sense_index" refers to. The user says "Choose the single best indexed sense" and the candidates are labeled 1 and 2. So I should return the number corresponding to the correct candidate.

 Candidate 1 is the medical growth sense.
 Candidate 2 is the coelenterate sense.

 The context is clearly about medical polyps in the bowel/colon, so the answer is sense 1.

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

format: unknown

native_finish_reason: stop

provider: ModelRun

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: malignancy
Target surface form: malignancy
Context:
It often is preceded by the development of polyps in the bowel, which in some cases become increasingly malignant in identifiable stages -- progressing from less severe to deadly -- as though a cascade of genetic damage might be occurring. Dr. Vogelstein and a doctoral student, Eric Fearon, began months of tedious and often frustrating probing of the chromosomes searching for signs of genetic damage. They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to <t>malignancy</t>. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=malignancy%1:26:00:: | definition=(medicine) a malignant state; progressive and resistant to treatment and tending to cause death | synonyms=malignance
2. sense_key=malignancy%1:07:00:: | definition=quality of being disposed to evil; intense ill will | synonyms=malignity, malignance

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 "malignancy" in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 - The text is about colon cancer development
 - It discusses polyps becoming malignant
 - It mentions "progressing from less severe to deadly"
 - It talks about genetic damage leading to cancer
 - The specific sentence is: "If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to <t>malignancy</t>."
 - The surrounding context mentions "benign polyps", "malignant cells", "cancer development", "colon cancer"

 Now let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=malignancy%1:26:00:: | definition=(medicine) a malignant state; progressive and resistant to treatment and tending to cause death | synonyms=malignance
    - This is the medical sense referring to cancer/malignant tumors
    - Domain: medicine
    - Refers to a malignant state (cancerous condition)

 2. sense_key=malignancy%1:07:00:: | definition=quality of being disposed to evil; intense ill will | synonyms=malignity, malignance
    - This is the moral/ethical sense referring to evil intent, malice, ill will
    - Domain: personality trait/character quality

 Analysis:
 The context is clearly medical - discussing colon cancer, polyps, genetic damage, cells, tumors. The word "malignancy" here refers to the cancerous state that polyps progress to. It's used in the medical sense of a malignant tumor or cancerous condition, not in the sense of evil intent or ill will.

 The text explicitly mentions:
 - "medicine" context (cancer, polyps, chromosomes, genetic damage)
 - "malignant cells" (parallel usage)
 - "cancer development"
 - "colon cancer"
 - "progress to malignancy" (meaning progress to cancer)

 Therefore, sense 1 is the correct choice.

 The user wants the output as: {"sense_index": 1} (where the index corresponds to the order of the candidate senses listed, which are numbered 1 and 2).

 Wait, let me check the numbering. The candidates are listed as:
 1. sense_key=malignancy%1:26:00::
 2. sense_key=malignancy%1:07:00::

 So the answer should be {"sense_index": 1}.

 But let me double-check the WordNet sense keys to make sure I understand the indices correctly.
 - %1:26:00:: refers to noun (1), group (26) - wait, let me recall WordNet lexicographer file numbers.
 Actually, the format is: lemma%ss_type:lex_filenum:lex_id:head_word:head_id
 - 1 = noun
 - 26 = noun.state? Let me check... actually:
   - 07 = noun.attribute
   - 26 = noun.state

 So:
 - sense 1: noun.state - a malignant state (medical condition)
 - sense 2: noun.attribute - quality of being disposed to evil (character trait)

 Yes, that confirms it. The medical sense is sense 1 in the list provided.

 The context is definitely medical: "polyps would progress to malignancy" means they become cancerous tumors. This matches sense 1.

 Therefore: {"sense_index": 1}

provider: Phala


[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: clear
Target surface form: clear
Context:
Dr. Vogelstein and a doctoral student, Eric Fearon, began months of tedious and often frustrating probing of the chromosomes searching for signs of genetic damage. They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was <t>clear</t> that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop. Their report galvanized other molecular biologists.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=clear%3:00:00:: | definition=readily apparent to the mind | examples=a clear and present danger; a clear explanation
2. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:clearheaded:00 | definition=free from confusion or doubt | examples=a complex problem requiring a clear head; not clear about what is expected of us
3. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:unobstructed:00 | definition=affording free passage or view | synonyms=open | examples=a clear view; a clear path to victory
4. sense_key=clear%3:00:02:: | definition=allowing light to pass through | examples=clear water; clear plastic bags
5. sense_key=clear%5:00:02:free:00 | definition=free from contact or proximity or connection | examples=we were clear of the danger; the ship was clear of the reef
6. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:untroubled:00 | definition=characterized by freedom from troubling thoughts (especially guilt) | examples=a clear conscience; regarded her questioner with clear untroubled eyes
7. sense_key=clear%5:00:01:pure:02 | definition=(of sound or color) free from anything that dulls or dims | synonyms=clean, light, unclouded | examples=efforts to obtain a clean bass in orchestral recordings; clear laughter like a waterfall
8. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:unencumbered:00 | definition=(especially of a title) free from any encumbrance or limitation that presents a question of fact or law | synonyms=unmortgaged | examples=I have clear title to this property
9. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:distinct:00 | definition=clear and distinct to the senses; easily perceptible | synonyms=clean-cut, clear-cut | examples=as clear as a whistle; clear footprints in the snow
10. sense_key=clear%3:00:04:: | definition=accurately stated or described | synonyms=well-defined | examples=a set of well-defined values
11. sense_key=clear%3:00:03:: | definition=free from clouds or mist or haze | examples=on a clear day
12. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:unqualified:02 | definition=free of restrictions or qualifications | synonyms=clean | examples=a clean bill of health; a clear winner
13. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:perfect:00 | definition=free from flaw or blemish or impurity | examples=a clear perfect diamond; the clear complexion of a healthy young woman
14. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:net:00 | definition=clear of charges or deductions | examples=a clear profit
15. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:legible:00 | definition=easily deciphered | synonyms=decipherable, readable
16. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:innocent:00 | definition=freed from any question of guilt | synonyms=absolved, cleared, exculpated, exonerated, vindicated | examples=is absolved from all blame; was now clear of the charge of cowardice
17. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:discerning:00 | definition=characterized by ease and quickness in perceiving | synonyms=percipient | examples=clear mind; a percipient author

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 "clear" in the given context.

Context analysis:
The sentence is: "It was <t>clear</t> that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop."

The context describes scientific research where Dr. Vogelstein and Eric Fearon were investigating genetic damage related to colon cancer. They found that if both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were deleted, polyps would progress to malignancy. Based on this evidence, it became "clear" that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop.

The meaning here is that the conclusion was evident, obvious, or readily apparent from the evidence they gathered.

Now let's look at the candidate senses:

1. sense_key=clear%3:00:00:: | definition=readily apparent to the mind | examples=a clear and present danger; a clear explanation
   - This fits well. The conclusion was readily apparent to the mind based on the evidence.

2. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:clearheaded:00 | definition=free from confusion or doubt | examples=a complex problem requiring a clear head; not clear about what is expected of us
   - This refers to a person's mental state, not the evidence itself.

3. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:unobstructed:00 | definition=affording free passage or view | synonyms=open | examples=a clear view; a clear path to victory
   - This is about physical visibility or passage, not about understanding.

4. sense_key=clear%3:00:02:: | definition=allowing light to pass through | examples=clear water; clear plastic bags
   - Physical transparency, not relevant.

5. sense_key=clear%5:00:02:free:00 | definition=free from contact or proximity or connection | examples=we were clear of the danger; the ship was clear of the reef
   - Physical distance, not relevant.

6. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:untroubled:00 | definition=characterized by freedom from troubling thoughts (especially guilt) | examples=a clear conscience; regarded her questioner with clear untroubled eyes
   - Mental state regarding guilt, not relevant.

7. sense_key=clear%5:00:01:pure:02 | definition=(of sound or color) free from anything that dulls or dims | synonyms=clean, light, unclouded | examples=efforts to obtain a clean bass in orchestral recordings; clear laughter like a waterfall
   - Sound or color purity, not relevant.

8. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:unencumbered:00 | definition=(especially of a title) free from any encumbrance or limitation that presents a question of fact or law | synonyms=unmortgaged | examples=I have clear title to this property
   - Legal title, not relevant.

9. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:distinct:00 | definition=clear and distinct to the senses; easily perceptible | synonyms=clean-cut, clear-cut | examples=as clear as a whistle; clear footprints in the snow
   - This is about sensory perception, not mental understanding. While close, the context is about an intellectual conclusion, not sensory perception.

10. sense_key=clear%3:00:04:: | definition=accurately stated or described | synonyms=well-defined | examples=a set of well-defined values
    - This is about being precisely defined, not about being obvious or evident.

11. sense_key=clear%3:00:03:: | definition=free from clouds or mist or haze | examples=on a clear day
    - Weather, not relevant.

12. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:unqualified:02 | definition=free of restrictions or qualifications | synonyms=clean | examples=a clean bill of health; a clear winner
    - Unconditional nature, not quite right.

13. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:perfect:00 | definition=free from flaw or blemish or impurity | examples=a clear perfect diamond; the clear complexion of a healthy young woman
    - Physical perfection, not relevant.

14. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:net:00 | definition=clear of charges or deductions | examples=a clear profit
    - Financial, not relevant.

15. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:legible:00 | definition=easily deciphered | synonyms=decipherable, readable
    - This is about reading text, not about understanding scientific evidence.

16. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:innocent:00 | definition=freed from any question of guilt | synonyms=absolved, cleared, exculpated, exonerated, vindicated | examples=is absolved from all blame; was now clear of the charge of cowardice
    - Legal innocence, not relevant.

17. sense_key=clear%5:00:00:discerning:00 | definition=characterized by ease and quickness in perceiving | synonyms=percipient | examples=clear mind; a percipient author
    - This describes a person's ability to perceive, not the evidence itself.

The best fit is sense 1: "readily apparent to the mind". This matches the context where the scientific evidence made it evident/obvious that multiple genes needed to be damaged.

Sense 9 is also close ("clear and distinct to the senses; easily perceptible"), but the context emphasizes mental understanding and comprehension of the scientific conclusion, not sensory perception. The phrase "readily apparent to the mind" captures the epistemic nature of the conclusion better than "easily perceptible" (which leans toward sensory perception).

Also, sense 1 has the example "a clear explanation" which is somewhat related to the structure here (it was clear that...), though "a clear and present danger" is also about something being evident.

The construction "It was clear that..." typically maps to sense 1 in WordNet - indicating that something is evident, obvious, or readily understood.

Therefore, the answer should be sense index 1.

provider: StreamLake


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

[User]
Target lemma: damage
Target surface form: damaged
Context:
Dr. Vogelstein and a doctoral student, Eric Fearon, began months of tedious and often frustrating probing of the chromosomes searching for signs of genetic damage. They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be <t>damaged</t> for colon cancer to develop. Their report galvanized other molecular biologists.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=damage%2:30:00:: | definition=inflict damage upon | examples=The snow damaged the roof; She damaged the car when she hit the tree
2. sense_key=damage%2:30:01:: | definition=suffer or be susceptible to damage | examples=These fine china cups damage easily

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 "damaged" in the given context.

 Target lemma: damage
 Target surface form: damaged
 Context: Scientific text about genetic damage in cancer research. Specifically: "It was clear that more than one gene had to be <t>damaged</t> for colon cancer to develop."

 Candidate senses:
 1. sense_key=damage%2:30:00:: | definition=inflict damage upon | examples: The snow damaged the roof; She damaged the car when she hit the tree
 2. sense_key=damage%2:30:01:: | definition=suffer or be susceptible to damage | examples: These fine china cups damage easily

 Analysis:
 - Sense 1 (damage%2:30:00::): "inflict damage upon" - This is a transitive verb where an agent causes damage to something. Examples show external agents (snow, she) damaging objects (roof, car).
 - Sense 2 (damage%2:30:01::): "suffer or be susceptible to damage" - This is an intransitive verb where the subject is the thing that suffers damage or is susceptible to it. Example: "These fine china cups damage easily" - meaning they are susceptible to being damaged.

 In the context: "more than one gene had to be damaged"
 - This is in the passive voice: "had to be damaged"
 - The subject is "more than one gene"
 - The meaning is that the genes need to undergo damage/alteration (suffer damage) for cancer to develop.
 - In biological contexts, when we say a gene is "damaged," we mean it suffers damage or alteration (mutation, deletion, etc.), not that it is inflicting damage upon something else.

 However, I need to look carefully at the WordNet senses. The passive construction "had to be damaged" could theoretically map to either sense depending on interpretation, but let's look at the semantics:

 Sense 1: "inflict damage upon" - If we use this in passive: "The roof was damaged by the snow" - this makes sense. The roof receives the action of damage being inflicted upon it.

 Sense 2: "suffer or be susceptible to damage" - If we use this in passive: "These cups are damaged easily" - this is essentially the same as active "These cups damage easily" but in passive form? Actually, "damage easily" in sense 2 is intransitive - the cups are the ones doing the "damaging" in terms of being susceptible, but it's an intransitive use meaning "to be susceptible to damage."

 Wait, looking at the examples:
 - Sense 1 examples are transitive: "The snow damaged the roof" (Agent = snow, Patient = roof)
 - Sense 2 example is intransitive: "These fine china cups damage easily" (Subject = cups, no object)

 In the passive construction "had to be damaged":
 - If it maps to Sense 1 (transitive), then "damaged" means "subjected to inflicted damage" - someone/something inflicted damage upon the genes.
 - If it maps to Sense 2 (intransitive), then "damaged" would mean "made to suffer damage" or "rendered susceptible to damage" - but this doesn't quite fit because sense 2 is about the inherent property of being susceptible (like "these cups damage easily" = they are fragile).

 Actually, looking closely at Sense 2: "suffer or be susceptible to damage" - this is an intransitive use. When we say "the cups damage easily," we mean they are prone to getting damaged. But in the passive "had to be damaged," this would imply "had to be made susceptible to damage," which doesn't fit the context. The context means the genes had to actually undergo damage (mutations, deletions as mentioned earlier in the text).

 The text mentions: "searching for signs of genetic damage" and "genetic deletions" and "both copies of a certain gene were knocked out" and "both copies of a second gene were then deleted."

 So "damaged" here means that the genes undergo damage (mutations, alterations). This is the patient role - the genes are the recipients of the damaging action.

 In WordNet:
 - Sense 1: damage%2:30:00:: = "inflict damage upon" - this is the transitive verb where the subject is the agent.
 - When used in passive voice ("the roof was damaged"), the subject is the patient, but the sense is still the transitive one (damage%2:30:00::) used passively.

 - Sense 2: damage%2:30:01:: = "suffer or be susceptible to damage" - this is intransitive. The subject is the experiencer or the thing that has the property of being damageable.

 In "more than one gene had to be damaged":
 - The genes are not the agents of inflicting damage (that would be environmental factors, mutations, etc.)
 - The genes are undergoing the damage.
 - In biological contexts, "gene damage" refers to the gene being altered/harmed.

 The question is: does this map to Sense 1 or Sense 2?

 Sense 2 ("suffer or be susceptible to damage") is used when the subject is the one experiencing the damage inherently, like "these cups damage easily" - they are prone to damage.

 But in "the gene was damaged," this is a passive construction of the transitive verb (Sense 1). The gene is the object of the damaging action performed by some agent (mutagens, replication errors, etc.).

 However, looking at the specific WordNet definitions:
 - Sense 1: "inflict damage upon" - this is clearly transitive.
 - Sense 2: "suffer or be susceptible to damage" - this is intransitive.

 In the sentence "It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop," the verb is passive. The subject "more than one gene" is receiving the action.

 If we look at the examples:
 - Sense 1: "The snow damaged the roof" → "The roof was damaged (by the snow)"
 - Sense 2: "These fine china cups damage easily" → ? "These cups are damaged easily" might be a possible passive, but it would mean "these cups are susceptible to damage easily" which is slightly different from "these cups suffer damage easily."

 Actually, "damage easily" in sense 2 is similar to "break easily" or "wash easily" - it's a middle construction or intransitive use indicating a property.

 But in the context of the text, "had to be damaged" refers to the necessity of the genes undergoing the event of being damaged (mutated). This is clearly the passive of the transitive verb (Sense 1), not the intransitive sense.

 The intransitive sense (Sense 2) would imply that the genes themselves have a property of being damage-prone, or that they suffer damage as an inherent characteristic. While genes can be susceptible to damage, the specific meaning here is that they must actually undergo the damaging event (be acted upon by damaging agents).

 Moreover, looking at the broader context: "searching for signs of genetic damage" - here "damage" is a noun. Then "genetic deletions" - these are specific types of damage. Then "knocked out" and "deleted" - these are actions done to the genes. So "damaged" parallels "knocked out" and "deleted" - all are things that happen to the genes (passive voice).

 Therefore, this is Sense 1 (damage%2:30:00::) used in the passive voice.

 Wait, but I should double-check if WordNet distinguishes these properly. In WordNet 3.0 or 3.1:
 - damage%2:30:00:: is indeed "inflict damage upon"
 - damage%2:30:01:: is "suffer or be susceptible to damage"

 The second sense is rare. It's used for things like "The fabric damages easily" meaning it is susceptible to damage.

 In "the gene was damaged," this is unambiguously the passive of the transitive verb (Sense 1). The gene is the patient.

 Therefore, the answer should be sense_index: 1.

 But let me reconsider if there's any ambiguity. Could the text mean that the genes had to be susceptible to damage? No, the context is about actual genetic changes (deletions, knockouts) that have occurred. "If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out... If both copies of a second gene were then deleted..." These are completed actions. So "had to be damaged" means "had to undergo damage/infliction of damage."

 Therefore, Sense 1 is correct.

 The user asks for a JSON object: {"sense_index": 1}

 Wait, I need to make sure about the indexing. The user lists:
 1. sense_key=damage%2:30:00::
 2. sense_key=damage%2:30:01::

 So sense_index 1 corresponds to damage%2:30:00:: and sense_index 2 corresponds to damage%2:30:01::.

 My 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: develop
Target surface form: develop
Context:
Dr. Vogelstein and a doctoral student, Eric Fearon, began months of tedious and often frustrating probing of the chromosomes searching for signs of genetic damage. They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to <t>develop</t>. Their report galvanized other molecular biologists.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=develop%2:36:01:: | definition=make something new, such as a product or a mental or artistic creation | examples=Her company developed a new kind of building material that withstands all kinds of weather; They developed a new technique
2. sense_key=develop%2:36:00:: | definition=work out | synonyms=evolve, germinate | examples=We have developed a new theory of evolution
3. sense_key=develop%2:30:06:: | definition=gain through experience | synonyms=acquire, evolve | examples=I acquired a strong aversion to television; Children must develop a sense of right and wrong
4. sense_key=develop%2:29:00:: | definition=come to have or undergo a change of (physical features and attributes) | synonyms=grow, produce, get, acquire | examples=He grew a beard; The patient developed abdominal pains
5. sense_key=develop%2:42:00:: | definition=come into existence; take on form or shape | synonyms=originate, arise, rise, uprise, spring up, grow | examples=A new religious movement originated in that country; a love that sprang up from friendship
6. sense_key=develop%2:30:04:: | definition=change the use of and make available or usable | synonyms=build up | examples=develop land; The country developed its natural resources
7. sense_key=develop%2:32:00:: | definition=elaborate, as of theories and hypotheses | synonyms=explicate, formulate | examples=Could you develop the ideas in your thesis
8. sense_key=develop%2:31:00:: | definition=create by training and teaching | synonyms=train, prepare, educate | examples=The old master is training world-class violinists; we develop the leaders for the future
9. sense_key=develop%2:30:05:: | definition=be gradually disclosed or unfolded; become manifest | examples=The plot developed slowly
10. sense_key=develop%2:30:00:: | definition=grow, progress, unfold, or evolve through a process of evolution, natural growth, differentiation, or a conducive environment | examples=A flower developed on the branch; The country developed into a mighty superpower
11. sense_key=develop%2:30:09:: | definition=become technologically advanced | synonyms=modernize, modernise | examples=Many countries in Asia are now developing at a very fast pace; Viet Nam is modernizing rapidly
12. sense_key=develop%2:30:01:: | definition=cause to grow and differentiate in ways conforming to its natural development | synonyms=make grow | examples=The perfect climate here develops the grain; He developed a new kind of apple
13. sense_key=develop%2:36:09:: | definition=generate gradually | examples=We must develop more potential customers; develop a market for the new mobile phone
14. sense_key=develop%2:30:10:: | definition=grow emotionally or mature | synonyms=grow | examples=The child developed beautifully in her new kindergarten; When he spent a summer at camp, the boy grew noticeably and no longer showed some of his old adolescent behavior
15. sense_key=develop%2:39:00:: | definition=make visible by means of chemical solutions | examples=Please develop this roll of film for me
16. sense_key=develop%2:35:04:: | definition=superimpose a three-dimensional surface on a plane without stretching, in geometry
17. sense_key=develop%2:33:03:: | definition=move one's pieces into strategically more advantageous positions | examples=Spassky developed quickly
18. sense_key=develop%2:33:02:: | definition=move into a strategically more advantageous position | examples=develop the rook
19. sense_key=develop%2:30:13:: | definition=elaborate by the unfolding of a musical idea and by the working out of the rhythmic and harmonic changes in the theme | examples=develop the melody and change the key
20. sense_key=develop%2:30:03:: | definition=happen | synonyms=break, recrudesce | examples=Report the news as it develops; These political movements recrudesce from time to time
21. sense_key=develop%2:30:12:: | definition=expand in the form of a series | examples=Develop the function in the following form

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 "develop" in the given context.

 Context analysis:
 - The text is about cancer biology and genetics.
 - It discusses how colon cancer develops through genetic mutations.
 - Specifically: "It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop."
 - The subject is "colon cancer" (a disease/condition) and the action is "develop" - meaning to come into existence, to arise, to begin to exist.

 Looking at the candidate senses:

 1. develop%2:36:01:: - make something new (product, creation) - This is transitive, creating something. Here cancer is developing, not being developed by someone as a creation.

 2. develop%2:36:00:: - work out (theories, etc.) - Not fitting for cancer.

 3. develop%2:30:06:: - gain through experience - Not fitting.

 4. develop%2:29:00:: - come to have physical features - Could work for diseases (develop symptoms), but here it's "colon cancer to develop" - the disease itself coming into existence.

 5. develop%2:42:00:: - come into existence; take on form or shape - synonyms: originate, arise, rise, uprise, spring up, grow. Examples: "A new religious movement originated in that country; a love that sprang up from friendship". This fits well with cancer beginning to exist.

 6. develop%2:30:04:: - change the use of (land) - Not fitting.

 7. develop%2:32:00:: - elaborate theories - Not fitting.

 8. develop%2:31:00:: - create by training - Not fitting.

 9. develop%2:30:05:: - be gradually disclosed or unfolded - Usually for plots, stories, not diseases.

 10. develop%2:30:00:: - grow, progress, unfold, or evolve through a process... - Examples: "A flower developed on the branch; The country developed into a mighty superpower". This could work for cancer growing/evolving.

 11. develop%2:30:09:: - become technologically advanced - Not fitting.

 12. develop%2:30:01:: - cause to grow (transitive) - Not fitting (this is "to develop" intransitive).

 13. develop%2:36:09:: - generate gradually (customers, markets) - Not fitting.

 14. develop%2:30:10:: - grow emotionally or mature - Not fitting.

 15. develop%2:39:00:: - make visible (film) - Not fitting.

 16. develop%2:35:04:: - geometry term - Not fitting.

 17. develop%2:33:03:: - chess - Not fitting.

 18. develop%2:33:02:: - chess - Not fitting.

 19. develop%2:30:13:: - music - Not fitting.

 20. develop%2:30:03:: - happen - synonyms: break, recrudesce. Examples: "Report the news as it develops". This could work but "happen" is a bit generic.

 21. develop%2:30:12:: - expand in series (math) - Not fitting.

 Now between sense 5 and sense 10 and sense 4 and sense 20:

 Sense 5: "come into existence; take on form or shape" - This is about originating, arising.
 Sense 10: "grow, progress, unfold, or evolve through a process of evolution, natural growth, differentiation, or a conducive environment" - This is about biological growth and evolution.
 Sense 4: "come to have or undergo a change of (physical features and attributes)" - This is often used for symptoms (develop a rash, develop pains) but also for diseases.
 Sense 20: "happen" - too generic.

 In medical contexts, when we say "cancer develops", we usually mean it comes into existence, arises, or grows/evolves biologically.

 Looking closely at sense 10: "grow, progress, unfold, or evolve through a process of evolution, natural growth, differentiation, or a conducive environment" - the example "A flower developed on the branch" suggests biological growth. Cancer developing fits this biological process sense.

 However, sense 5 "come into existence; take on form or shape" with synonyms like "originate, arise" also fits well.

 Let me check the exact wording: "for colon cancer to develop"

 In the context:
 - "a coherent picture of cancer development emerged"
 - "benign polyps would develop"
 - "the polyps would progress to malignancy"
 - "colon cancer to develop"

 The pattern is:
 - Polyps develop (come into existence/grow)
 - Cancer develops (comes into existence/grows)

 Sense 10 (develop%2:30:00::) seems most appropriate for biological growth and evolution: "grow, progress, unfold, or evolve through a process of evolution, natural growth, differentiation..."

 But wait, sense 4 (develop%2:29:00::) is "come to have or undergo a change of (physical features and attributes)" with examples like "The patient developed abdominal pains". This is also used for medical conditions.

 However, "develop" with the subject being the disease itself (cancer) rather than the patient developing symptoms is slightly different.

 Actually, looking at the examples for sense 4: "He grew a beard; The patient developed abdominal pains" - this is the patient developing symptoms.

 In "colon cancer to develop", the cancer is the subject (implied: [for] colon cancer to develop). This is the intransitive use where the disease comes into existence.

 Sense 5: "come into existence; take on form or shape" - synonyms: originate, arise, rise, uprise, spring up, grow. Example: "A new religious movement originated in that country; a love that sprang up from friendship"

 Sense 10: "grow, progress, unfold, or evolve..." - Example: "A flower developed on the branch; The country developed into a mighty superpower"

 Both could work, but sense 10 emphasizes the process of growth and evolution, which fits the biological context of cancer developing through multiple genetic mutations (as described in the text - it's a process involving multiple steps: "If both copies... were knocked out... If both copies of a second gene...").

 However, sense 5 is specifically about coming into existence.

 Let me reconsider sense 20: "happen" - "Report the news as it develops". This is about events unfolding.

 Actually, looking at WordNet standard senses for "develop" when used with diseases:

 In WordNet, "develop" for diseases (like "cancer develops") is often sense 10 or sense 5.

 But let me look at the specific sense keys provided:

 develop%2:30:00:: - grow, progress, unfold, or evolve...
 develop%2:42:00:: - come into existence...

 The difference is that sense 42 (develop%2:42:00::) is in the "stative" or "creation" frame, while sense 30:00 is in the "change" frame.

 Actually, looking at the verb frames:
 - 2:30:00 is under verb.change
 - 2:42:00 is under verb.creation? No, looking at the key: develop%2:42:00:: - the 42 usually indicates verb.creation.

 Wait, WordNet sense keys format: lemma%lexical_category:lexical_file_number:lexeme_number::

 So:
 - 2:30:xx is verb.change
 - 2:36:xx is verb.creation
 - 2:42:xx is verb.creation? No, 42 is verb.creation? Let me check.

 Actually, standard WordNet lexicographer file numbers:
 - 29 verb.body
 - 30 verb.change
 - 31 verb.cognition
 - 32 verb.communication
 - 33 verb.competition
 - 35 verb.contact
 - 36 verb.creation
 - 39 verb.perception
 - 40 verb.possession
 - 41 verb.social
 - 42 verb.stative? No, 42 might be verb.creation or something else.

 Wait, looking at the provided keys:
 - develop%2:36:01:: - verb.creation (make something new)
 - develop%2:30:06:: - verb.change
 - develop%2:29:00:: - verb.body
 - develop%2:42:00:: - this is likely verb.stative or verb.creation?

 Actually, looking at the definition "come into existence; take on form or shape" - this sounds like verb.creation or verb.change.

 But "come into existence" is often verb.change (becoming) or verb.stative.

 Given the examples "A new religious movement originated...", this is likely verb.stative (42) or verb.change (30).

 Actually, checking standard WordNet:
 develop%2:30:00:: - "grow, progress, unfold, or evolve through a process of evolution, natural growth, differentiation, or a conducive environment" - this is the sense for flowers developing, countries developing.

 develop%2:42:00:: - "come into existence; take on form or shape" - synonyms: originate, arise, rise, uprise, spring up, grow. This is for things originating.

 For cancer, both could apply, but the text emphasizes the process: "Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged... If both copies... were knocked out... If both copies... were then deleted..."

 This describes a process of evolution/growth (sense 10), not just popping into existence (sense 5).

 However, "develop" in medical contexts for diseases is often sense 10 (biological growth) or sense 4 (acquiring a condition).

 But looking at the specific phrase: "for colon cancer to develop"

 Compare with the example in sense 10: "A flower developed on the branch" - biological growth.
 Compare with sense 4: "The patient developed abdominal pains" - acquiring symptoms.

 Since the subject is the cancer (the disease) and not the patient developing symptoms, and given the context of genetic changes leading to the emergence of the disease, sense 10 (grow, progress, unfold, or evolve...) seems best.

 Wait, I should also consider sense 20: "happen" - "Report the news as it develops". But this is less specific than the biological process sense.

 Actually, looking carefully at sense 5 (develop%2:42:00::): "come into existence; take on form or shape". The example "A new religious movement originated..." suggests abstract things coming into being.

 Sense 10 is more concrete biological growth.

 Cancer is a biological entity, so sense 10 fits better.

 But let me double-check sense 4 (develop%2:29:00::): "come to have or undergo a change of (physical features and attributes)". This includes diseases: "The patient developed abdominal pains". But can we say "the cancer developed"? Yes, but usually we say "the patient developed cancer" (sense 4) or "cancer develops in the patient" (sense 10 or 5).

 In the passive or intransitive with the disease as subject: "cancer develops" - this is the disease growing/evolving.

 The text says: "for colon cancer to develop" - this is parallel to "benign polyps would develop" earlier in the text.

 "benign polyps would develop" - polyps are growths, they develop (grow).

 So sense 10: "grow, progress, unfold, or evolve..." seems correct.

 However, I want to check if there's a specific medical sense. Looking at the list, sense 4 is the "acquire/grow/produce" sense for physical features including pains.

 But "colon cancer to develop" - the cancer is the thing developing (growing), not the patient developing the cancer (though that's implied).

 Actually, looking at the sentence structure: "It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop."

 This is similar to: "for a flower to develop" (sense 10 example).

 Therefore, sense 10 (develop%2:30:00::) is the best choice.

 Wait, I should verify the index. The user wants the "sense_index" which corresponds to the number in the list.

 The list is:
 1. sense_key=develop%2:36:01::
 2. sense_key=develop%2:36:00::
 3. sense_key=develop%2:30:06::
 4. sense_key=develop%2:29:00::
 5. sense_key=develop%2:42:00::
 6. sense_key=develop%2:30:04::
 7. sense_key=develop%2:32:00::
 8. sense_key=develop%2:31:00::
 9. sense_key=develop%2:30:05::
 10. sense_key=develop%2:30:00::
 11. sense_key=develop%2:30:09::
 12. sense_key=develop%2:30:01::
 13. sense_key=develop%2:36:09::
 14. sense_key=develop%2:30:10::
 15. sense_key=develop%2:39:00::
 16. sense_key=develop%2:35:04::
 17. sense_key=develop%2:33:03::
 18. sense_key=develop%2:33:02::
 19. sense_key=develop%2:30:13::
 20. sense_key=develop%2:30:03::
 21. sense_key=develop%2:30:12::

 So sense 10 is develop%2:30:00::.

 But let me reconsider sense 5 (develop%2:42:00::). The definition is "come into existence; take on form or shape". In the context of cancer, this is also very appropriate - cancer comes into existence.

 However, the text emphasizes the process: "Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged... If both copies... were knocked out... If both copies... were then deleted..."

 This progressive, step-by-step nature fits "grow, progress, unfold, or evolve" (sense 10) better than just "come into existence" (sense 5).

 Also, sense 10 includes "evolve", which is very appropriate for the genetic/evolutionary context described.

 Therefore, I choose sense 10.

 One final check: could it be sense 20 (happen)? "for colon cancer to happen"? That's possible but less formal/medical than "develop".

 Sense 4? "for colon cancer to come to have physical features"? No, that doesn't fit grammatically with the subject "colon cancer".

 So sense 10 is the winner.

provider: AtlasCloud


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

[User]
Target lemma: report
Target surface form: report
Context:
They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop. Their <t>report</t> galvanized other molecular biologists. "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor, "says Ray White at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Salt Lake City.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=report%1:10:03:: | definition=a written document describing the findings of some individual or group | synonyms=study, written report | examples=this accords with the recent study by Hill and Dale
2. sense_key=report%1:10:01:: | definition=the act of informing by verbal report | synonyms=account | examples=he heard reports that they were causing trouble; by all accounts they were a happy couple
3. sense_key=report%1:10:00:: | definition=a short account of the news | synonyms=news report, story, account, write up | examples=the report of his speech; the story was on the 11 o'clock news
4. sense_key=report%1:11:00:: | definition=a sharp explosive sound (especially the sound of a gun firing) | examples=they heard a violent report followed by silence
5. sense_key=report%1:10:04:: | definition=a written evaluation of a student's scholarship and deportment | synonyms=report card | examples=his father signed his report card
6. sense_key=report%1:10:02:: | definition=an essay (especially one written as an assignment) | synonyms=composition, paper, theme | examples=he got an A on his composition
7. sense_key=report%1:09:00:: | definition=the general estimation that the public has for a person | synonyms=reputation | examples=he acquired a reputation as an actor before he started writing; he was a person of bad report

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 "report" in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 - The text is about scientific research on colon cancer and genetic deletions
 - "Their report galvanized other molecular biologists"
 - It's described as "confirming evidence we all needed"
 - It seems to be referring to a scientific publication or written document describing findings

 Now let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=report%1:10:03:: | definition=a written document describing the findings of some individual or group | synonyms=study, written report | examples=this accords with the recent study by Hill and Dale
 - This fits well. It's a written document describing scientific findings (genetic deletions, cancer development). The synonyms include "study" which fits the scientific context.

 2. sense_key=report%1:10:01:: | definition=the act of informing by verbal report | synonyms=account | examples=he heard reports that they were causing trouble; by all accounts they were a happy couple
 - This is about verbal reporting, not a written scientific document. Doesn't fit.

 3. sense_key=report%1:10:00:: | definition=a short account of the news | synonyms=news report, story, account, write up | examples=the report of his speech; the story was on the 11 o'clock news
 - This is about news/journalism. While scientific findings can be news, this is more about a formal scientific publication, not a news story.

 4. sense_key=report%1:11:00:: | definition=a sharp explosive sound (especially the sound of a gun firing) | examples=they heard a violent report followed by silence
 - Definitely not this one. No gunfire in the context.

 5. sense_key=report%1:10:04:: | definition=a written evaluation of a student's scholarship and deportment | synonyms=report card | examples=his father signed his report card
 - This is about school report cards. Not relevant.

 6. sense_key=report%1:10:02:: | definition=an essay (especially one written as an assignment) | synonyms=composition, paper, theme | examples=he got an A on his composition
 - This is about student essays/assignments. While "paper" could fit scientific context, the definition specifies "especially one written as an assignment" suggesting academic coursework.

 7. sense_key=report%1:09:00:: | definition=the general estimation that the public has for a person | synonyms=reputation | examples=he acquired a reputation as an actor before he started writing; he was a person of bad report
 - This is about reputation. Not relevant.

 The best fit is sense 1: "a written document describing the findings of some individual or group" with synonyms "study, written report". The context describes scientific findings about colon cancer genetics, and it's referred to as confirming evidence that galvanized other scientists - clearly referring to a scientific report/study/publication.

 The index for this sense is 1 (sense_key=report%1:10:03:: corresponds to index 1 in the list).

 Wait, let me check the indexing. The user lists them as:
 1. sense_key=report%1:10:03::
 2. sense_key=report%1:10:01::
 3. sense_key=report%1:10:00::
 4. sense_key=report%1:11:00::
 5. sense_key=report%1:10:04::
 6. sense_key=report%1:10:02::
 7. sense_key=report%1:09:00::

 So the first one is index 1.

 Actually, looking carefully at the WordNet sense keys:
 - report%1:10:03:: is the first one listed, labeled as 1.
 - This corresponds to the written document describing findings.

 Yes, sense_index should be 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: galvanize
Target surface form: galvanized
Context:
They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop. Their report <t>galvanized</t> other molecular biologists. "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor, "says Ray White at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Salt Lake City.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=galvanize%2:37:00:: | definition=to stimulate to action | synonyms=startle, galvanise | examples=..startled him awake; galvanized into action
2. sense_key=galvanize%2:35:00:: | definition=cover with zinc | synonyms=galvanise | examples=galvanize steel
3. sense_key=galvanize%2:29:02:: | definition=stimulate (muscles) by administering a shock | synonyms=galvanise

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 "galvanized" in the given context.

 Context analysis:
 - The sentence says: "Their report galvanized other molecular biologists."
 - The following quote explains: "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor"
 - This suggests the report stimulated or spurred the biologists into action or heightened their interest/attention.

 Candidate senses:
 1. sense_key=galvanize%2:37:00:: | definition=to stimulate to action | synonyms=startle, galvanise | examples=..startled him awake; galvanized into action
 2. sense_key=galvanize%2:35:00:: | definition=cover with zinc | synonyms=galvanise | examples=galvanize steel
 3. sense_key=galvanize%2:29:02:: | definition=stimulate (muscles) by administering a shock | synonyms=galvanise

 Analysis:
 - Sense 2 is about coating metal with zinc - clearly not applicable here since we're talking about a report stimulating biologists.
 - Sense 3 is about stimulating muscles with electric shock - this is a literal/medical usage, not applicable to a report stimulating people intellectually or into action.
 - Sense 1 is "to stimulate to action" with synonyms including "startle" and examples like "galvanized into action". This fits the context perfectly: the report stimulated the molecular biologists (into further research/action).

 The context shows the report had a stimulating effect on the scientific community - it "galvanized" them meaning it spurred them into action or heightened their awareness/activity.

 Therefore, sense 1 is the correct choice.

 The user wants the output as: {"sense_index": 1}

provider: Moonshot AI


[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: other
Target surface form: other
Context:
They began uncovering a confusing variety of genetic deletions, some existing only in benign polyps, others in malignant cells and many in both polyps and malignant cells. Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop. Their report galvanized <t>other</t> molecular biologists. "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor, "says Ray White at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Salt Lake City.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=other%3:00:00:: | definition=not the same one or ones already mentioned or implied; - the White Queen | examples=today isn't any other day; the construction of highways and other public works
2. sense_key=other%5:00:00:past:00 | definition=recently past | examples=the other evening
3. sense_key=other%5:00:02:past:00 | definition=belonging to the distant past | synonyms=early, former | examples=the early inhabitants of Europe; former generations
4. sense_key=other%5:00:00:strange:00 | definition=very unusual; different in character or quality from the normal or expected; - Lance Morrow | examples=a strange, other dimension...where his powers seemed to fail

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 "other" in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 - "Their report galvanized other molecular biologists."
 - The context is about scientific research on colon cancer, specifically about genetic deletions and cancer development.
 - The sentence talks about how the report affected "other molecular biologists" - meaning molecular biologists other than the ones who conducted the study mentioned earlier (the "They" who began uncovering genetic deletions).
 - The quote following is from "Ray White at Howard Hughes Medical Institute" who appears to be one of these "other molecular biologists."

 Now let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=other%3:00:00:: | definition=not the same one or ones already mentioned or implied; - the White Queen | examples=today isn't any other day; the construction of highways and other public works
 - This seems to fit. It means "additional" or "different from the ones already mentioned" - in this case, molecular biologists other than the researchers who wrote the report.

 2. sense_key=other%5:00:00:past:00 | definition=recently past | examples=the other evening
 - This refers to time (e.g., "the other day"). Doesn't fit here.

 3. sense_key=other%5:00:02:past:00 | definition=belonging to the distant past | synonyms=early, former | examples=the early inhabitants of Europe; former generations
 - This means "former" or "previous". Doesn't fit here - we're talking about contemporary molecular biologists, not ones from the distant past.

 4. sense_key=other%5:00:00:strange:00 | definition=very unusual; different in character or quality from the normal or expected; - Lance Morrow | examples=a strange, other dimension...where his powers seemed to fail
 - This means "strange" or "unusual". Doesn't fit here.

 So sense 1 is clearly the correct one. The word "other" here means "not the same one or ones already mentioned or implied" - referring to molecular biologists other than the specific researchers being discussed (presumably the team that produced "Their report").

 The examples for sense 1 also support this: "the construction of highways and other public works" - meaning public works other than highways.

 Therefore, the answer should be sense_index 1.

 Wait, let me double-check the sense keys to make sure I understand the indexing correctly.

 The candidates are labeled:
 1. sense_key=other%3:00:00::
 2. sense_key=other%5:00:00:past:00
 3. sense_key=other%5:00:02:past:00
 4. sense_key=other%5:00:00:strange:00

 So I should return {"sense_index": 1}.

 But let me make sure about the context once more. "galvanized other molecular biologists" - yes, this means it galvanized molecular biologists besides/except for the ones who made the discovery/report. This is the standard "other" meaning "additional" or "different from those mentioned."

 Sense 1 definition: "not the same one or ones already mentioned or implied"
 - Yes, the molecular biologists mentioned earlier are the researchers who wrote the report. The "other" molecular biologists are different ones, not the same ones.

 This is definitely sense 1.

 The user wants only a JSON object exactly like {"sense_index": 3} (but with the correct index, which is 1).

 So: {"sense_index": 1}

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: confirming
Target surface form: confirming
Context:
Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop. Their report galvanized other molecular biologists. "It was the <t>confirming</t> evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor, "says Ray White at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Salt Lake City. But Dr. Vogelstein had yet to nail the identity of the gene that, if damaged, flipped a colon cell into full-blown malignancy.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=confirming%3:00:02:: | definition=indicating existence or presence of a suspected condition or pathogen | synonyms=positive | examples=a positive pregnancy test
2. sense_key=confirming%5:00:00:supportive:00 | definition=serving to support or corroborate | synonyms=collateral, confirmative, confirmatory, corroborative, corroboratory, substantiating | examples=collateral evidence

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 "confirming" in the given context.

 Let me analyze the context:
 - The text is about cancer research and gene losses.
 - "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor"
 - Here, "confirming" modifies "evidence" and means that the evidence supports or corroborates the theory that gene losses are critical.

 Now let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=confirming%3:00:02:: | definition=indicating existence or presence of a suspected condition or pathogen | synonyms=positive | examples=a positive pregnancy test
    - This sense seems to be about medical tests indicating the presence of a disease/condition (like a positive test result).
    - The example "a positive pregnancy test" suggests this is about diagnostic tests showing something is present.
    - In the context, we're not talking about a test indicating the presence of a pathogen, but rather evidence supporting a scientific theory.

 2. sense_key=confirming%5:00:00:supportive:00 | definition=serving to support or corroborate | synonyms=collateral, confirmative, confirmatory, corroborative, corroboratory, substantiating | examples=collateral evidence
    - This sense means supporting or corroborating evidence.
    - The synonyms include "corroborative", "substantiating", "confirmatory".
    - The example "collateral evidence" fits with the context of scientific evidence supporting a theory.
    - In the sentence, "confirming evidence" means evidence that supports/confirms the theory about gene losses.

 The context clearly supports sense 2. The evidence is serving to support or corroborate the theory that gene losses are critical to tumor development. It's not about indicating the presence of a pathogen (sense 1), but about supporting a scientific hypothesis.

 Therefore, the best sense is sense 2 (index 2).

 Wait, let me check the sense keys again to make sure I'm interpreting the indices correctly.
 - Sense 1: confirming%3:00:02::
 - Sense 2: confirming%5:00:00:supportive:00

 The user asks for the "sense_index" in the JSON output. Looking at the candidate senses, they are numbered 1 and 2. So I should return {"sense_index": 2}.

 Let me double-check:
 - Sense 1 is about indicating existence/presence of a suspected condition (like a medical test being positive).
 - Sense 2 is about serving to support or corroborate.

 The quote: "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical..."
 This means the evidence confirmed (supported/corroborated) the theory. This matches sense 2.

 Yes, sense 2 is correct.

provider: Novita


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

[User]
Target lemma: evidence
Target surface form: evidence
Context:
Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop. Their report galvanized other molecular biologists. "It was the confirming <t>evidence</t> we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor, "says Ray White at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Salt Lake City. But Dr. Vogelstein had yet to nail the identity of the gene that, if damaged, flipped a colon cell into full-blown malignancy.

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

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

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

 Let me analyze the context:
 - The text is about cancer research and gene losses
 - "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor"
 - This refers to scientific evidence/confirmation that supports a hypothesis or theory about gene losses and cancer development

 Now let's look at the candidate senses:

 1. sense_key=evidence%1:09:00:: | definition=your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief | synonyms=grounds | examples=the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling
    - This seems to fit scientific contexts where evidence provides the basis for believing a scientific claim
    - The example mentions "evidence that smoking causes lung cancer" which is similar to the context about gene losses causing cancer

 2. sense_key=evidence%1:10:01:: | definition=an indication that makes something evident | examples=his trembling was evidence of his fear
    - This seems more about signs or indications of something
    - The example shows trembling as evidence of fear - more about observable signs
    - In the context, it's not just an indication, but scientific confirmation/data supporting a theory

 3. sense_key=evidence%1:10:00:: | definition=(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved
    - This is specifically legal evidence
    - The context is clearly scientific/medical research, not legal

 So sense 3 is definitely out because it's legal context.

 Between sense 1 and sense 2:
 - Sense 1 focuses on "basis for belief or disbelief" - knowledge used to base belief on
 - Sense 2 focuses on "indication that makes something evident" - a sign or manifestation

 In the sentence: "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical..."
 - This is referring to the research findings (the report by Vogelstein et al.) serving as confirmation/verification of the theory that gene losses are critical
 - It's providing the scientific basis for believing that gene losses cause cancer
 - This aligns with sense 1: "your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief"
 - The example for sense 1 is "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer" which is almost exactly parallel to "evidence that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor"

 Sense 2 would be more like "the tumors were evidence of gene damage" - where the tumors are a sign/indication of the gene damage. But here, the "evidence" refers to the research findings/data that confirm the theory.

 Therefore, sense 1 is the best fit.

 Wait, let me double-check the WordNet sense keys to make sure I understand the indices correctly:
 - evidence%1:09:00:: - this is sense 1 in the candidate list
 - evidence%1:10:01:: - this is sense 2 in the candidate list
 - evidence%1:10:00:: - this is sense 3 in the candidate list

 The user wants me to return {"sense_index": 1} for the first sense, {"sense_index": 2} for the second, or {"sense_index": 3} for the third.

 So I should return {"sense_index": 1}.

provider: Chutes


[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: need
Target surface form: needed
Context:
Gradually, a coherent picture of cancer development emerged. If both copies of a certain gene were knocked out, benign polyps would develop. If both copies of a second gene were then deleted, the polyps would progress to malignancy. It was clear that more than one gene had to be damaged for colon cancer to develop. Their report galvanized other molecular biologists. "It was the confirming evidence we all <t>needed</t> that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor, "says Ray White at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Salt Lake City. But Dr. Vogelstein had yet to nail the identity of the gene that, if damaged, flipped a colon cell into full-blown malignancy.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=need%2:42:00:: | definition=require as useful, just, or proper | synonyms=necessitate, ask, postulate, require, take, involve | examples=It takes nerve to do what she did; success usually requires hard work
2. sense_key=need%2:34:00:: | definition=have need of | synonyms=want, require | examples=This piano wants the attention of a competent tuner
3. sense_key=need%2:34:01:: | definition=have or feel a need for | examples=always needing friends and money

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 "needed" in the given context. The target lemma is "need" and the surface form is "needed" (past tense).

Let me analyze the context:
- The sentence is: "It was the confirming evidence we all <t>needed</t> that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor"
- This is describing a situation where scientists required/needed confirming evidence.
- The subject "we" (the scientists) needed the evidence.

Now let's look at the candidate senses:

1. sense_key=need%2:42:00:: | definition=require as useful, just, or proper | synonyms=necessitate, ask, postulate, require, take, involve | examples=It takes nerve to do what she did; success usually requires hard work
   - This sense seems to be about something requiring something else (like "it needs/requires X to do Y")
   - The examples show "It takes nerve" and "success requires hard work" - these are cases where the subject is an action/situation requiring something
   - This is a transitive verb where the subject is the thing that requires

2. sense_key=need%2:34:00:: | definition=have need of | synonyms=want, require | examples=This piano wants the attention of a competent tuner
   - This sense is about someone/something having a need for something
   - The example "This piano wants the attention..." shows the subject having a need
   - Synonyms: want, require

3. sense_key=need%2:34:01:: | definition=have or feel a need for | examples=always needing friends and money
   - This is about experiencing the feeling of need
   - The example suggests a personal, emotional, or subjective need ("needing friends")

Now, looking at the context: "we all needed that gene losses were critical..."
Wait, let me look more carefully at the sentence structure:
"It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor"

Actually, parsing this:
- "It was the confirming evidence [that/which] we all needed"
- The "that" clause "that gene losses were critical..." is likely appositive or complement to "evidence"

So: "we all needed [the confirming evidence]"
The scientists needed the evidence.

So "we" (human agents) needed something (the evidence).

Sense 1 (need%2:42:00::) is typically used when the subject is an action or situation that requires something. For example: "The job needs patience" or "It needs work."

Sense 2 (need%2:34:00::) means "have need of" - this fits when a person or entity requires something. "I need help" - I have need of help.

Sense 3 (need%2:34:01::) is about feeling a need, which is more subjective/emotional.

In the context: "we all needed" - the scientists needed the confirming evidence. This is a case where people "have need of" something. They require it for their work/understanding.

Sense 2 seems most appropriate: "have need of" - the scientists had need of the confirming evidence.

Sense 1 would be more like "The theory needs evidence" (the theory requires evidence), but here it's "we needed" (the people needed).

Sense 3 would be more about feeling an emotional need, like "I need friends" or "I need love."

So between sense 2 and sense 3, sense 2 is better because it's about requiring something for a purpose (scientific confirmation), not just feeling a subjective need.

Wait, let me double-check the WordNet sense distinctions. In WordNet:
- need%2:42:00:: is the "require" sense, often used with inanimate subjects or in constructions like "it needs..."
- need%2:34:00:: is "have need of" - this is the standard transitive sense where a person needs an object
- need%2:34:01:: is "have or feel a need for" - this is more about the emotional/psychological state

The example for sense 2: "This piano wants the attention of a competent tuner" - note that "wants" here is synonymous with "needs" in the sense of requiring attention.

The example for sense 3: "always needing friends and money" - this suggests a personal, ongoing state of needing.

In the scientific context: "we all needed [the evidence]" - this is about requiring something for scientific validation, not just feeling a subjective lack. It's about "having need of" the evidence to confirm their theories.

Therefore, sense 2 (need%2:34:00::) is the best choice.

But wait, I need to be careful. Let me look at the exact wording again: "we all needed that gene losses were critical..."

Actually, looking at the syntax: "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical..."

This could be parsed as:
1. "It was the confirming evidence [that/which] we all needed [that showed] that gene losses were critical..."
2. Or: "It was the confirming evidence [that] we all needed that gene losses were critical..." where "that gene losses were critical" is the content of the evidence.

But regardless, "we all needed" has "we" as the subject and the evidence (or the that-clause) as the object.

Actually, looking carefully: "we all needed that gene losses were critical" - no, that's not right.

Let me re-read: "It was the confirming evidence we all needed that gene losses were critical to the development of a common tumor"

The structure is:
- It was the confirming evidence [that/which] we all needed
- [and this evidence showed] that gene losses were critical...

Or it could be: "It was the confirming evidence [that] we all needed [to show] that gene losses were critical..."

But the key is "we all needed" - the subject is "we" (people) and they needed the evidence.

So this is clearly sense 2: "have need of" - the scientists had need of the confirming evidence.

Sense 1 would be if it said something like "The theory needed evidence" or "The experiment needed controls."

Sense 3 would be if it said something like "We always needed friends" or emotional needs.

Therefore, the answer should be sense 2.

Wait, I should verify the sense indices. The user lists:
1. sense_key=need%2:42:00::
2. sense_key=need%2:34:00::
3. sense_key=need%2:34:01::

So sense_index would be 2.

But let me double-check if sense 1 could apply. Sense 1 examples: "It takes nerve to do what she did; success usually requires hard work". These are cases where the subject is an abstract thing (success) requiring something (hard work), or "it" as in "it takes nerve."

In "we all needed", "we" are people requiring something. This is different from "it requires" or "success requires."

Sense 2 synonyms: want, require. Example: "This piano wants the attention..." - here "wants" = "needs" in the sense of requiring something.

Actually, looking at WordNet, need%2:34:00:: and need%2:42:00:: are both about requirement, but:
- 2:42:00 is "require as useful, just, or proper" - this is the sense where something necessitates something else
- 2:34:00 is "have need of" - this is the sense where someone lacks something and requires it

The distinction is subtle. But "we all needed [the evidence]" fits better with "have need of" (sense 2) than with "require as useful" (sense 1).

Sense 1 is more like "This situation needs immediate attention" (requires it as proper/useful).
Sense 2 is more like "I need help" (I have need of help).

The scientists needed the evidence - they had need of it. So sense 2.

Final check: The user wants a JSON object like {"sense_index": 3}. So I should return {"sense_index": 2}.