[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: proportion
Target surface form: proportion
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>proportion</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=proportion%1:24:00:: | definition=the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole
2. sense_key=proportion%1:07:00:: | definition=magnitude or extent | synonyms=dimension | examples=a building of vast proportions
3. sense_key=proportion%1:25:00:: | definition=balance among the parts of something | synonyms=symmetry
4. sense_key=proportion%1:24:01:: | definition=the relation between things (or parts of things) with respect to their comparative quantity, magnitude, or degree | synonyms=ratio | examples=an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations; a dry martini has a large proportion of gin
5. sense_key=proportion%1:07:01:: | definition=harmonious arrangement or relation of parts or elements within a whole (as in a design); - John Ruskin | synonyms=proportionality, balance | examples=in all perfectly beautiful objects there is found the opposition of one part to another and a reciprocal balance

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `proportion`
    *   Target surface form: `proportion`
    *   Context: "Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher <t>proportion</t> of their personal staffs to district offices..."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `proportion%1:24:00::`: the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole.
        2.  `proportion%1:07:00::`: magnitude or extent (synonym: dimension).
        3.  `proportion%1:25:00::`: balance among the parts of something (synonym: symmetry).
        4.  `proportion%1:24:01::`: the relation between things (or parts of things) with respect to their comparative quantity, magnitude, or degree (synonym: ratio).
        5.  `proportion%1:07:01::`: harmonious arrangement or relation of parts or elements within a whole (synonym: proportionality, balance).

    *   The sentence says: "Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices".
    *   This refers to the percentage or ratio of staff members assigned to district offices compared to the total staff.
    *   It's comparing the part (staff in district offices) to the whole (total personal staff).

    *   Sense 1: "the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole". This fits perfectly (part/whole = proportion/percentage).
    *   Sense 2: "magnitude or extent". (Incorrect: not talking about the size of the building/object).
    *   Sense 3: "balance among the parts of something". (Incorrect: not talking about symmetry).
    *   Sense 4: "the relation between things (or parts of things) with respect to their comparative quantity, magnitude, or degree". (This is close, but Sense 1 is more specific to the part-to-whole relationship described here).
    *   Sense 5: "harmonious arrangement". (Incorrect).

    *   Sense 1 is the mathematical definition of a proportion as a part of a whole (e.g., 0.4 or 40%).
    *   Sense 4 is more about the ratio between two things (e.g., 2:1).
    *   In the context "proportion of their personal staffs to district offices", it means the fraction of the total staff that is in district offices. This is a part-to-whole relationship.

    *   Sense 1: "the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole"
    *   Sense 4: "the relation between things (or parts of things) with respect to their comparative quantity, magnitude, or degree"
    *   Example for Sense 4: "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations". This example is actually very similar to the target context ("proportion of their personal staffs").
    *   Wait, let's look closer at Sense 1 vs Sense 4.
    *   Sense 1 is the *quotient* (the number).
    *   Sense 4 is the *relation* (the ratio).
    *   In common usage, "a higher proportion of X" often refers to the ratio/relation.
    *   However, "proportion of [whole] to [part]" or "proportion of [whole] that is [part]" is the classic part-to-whole definition.
    *   Let's re-read Sense 4's example: "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations". This is exactly the same structure as "a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices".
    *   Let's re-read Sense 1: "the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole".
    *   Actually, in many WordNet versions, Sense 1 and Sense 4 are very similar. Let's check the distinction again.
    *   Sense 1: quotient (the result of division).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   In the sentence "Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices", they are talking about the relative amount.
    *   Looking at the examples provided in the prompt:
        *   Sense 4 example: "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations".
        *   Target: "a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices".
    *   The target sentence structure is almost identical to the example for Sense 4.

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation/ratio.
    *   If the text says "a higher proportion", it's referring to the relation/ratio.
    *   Let's double-check Sense 1 again. "the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole".
    *   If I say "the proportion is 0.5", that's the quotient. If I say "a large proportion of the staff", I'm talking about the relation/ratio.
    *   The example "an inordinate proportion of the book" strongly points to Sense 4.

    *   Target: "higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices"
    *   Sense 4 Example: "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations"
    *   These are structurally and semantically identical.

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   The phrase "a higher proportion" describes the relation.

    *   Wait, let me look at Sense 1 again. "the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole".
    *   Is "a higher proportion" referring to the quotient? Yes, 0.6 is a higher quotient than 0.4.
    *   Is it referring to the relation? Yes, the relation of staff in district offices to total staff is higher.
    *   But the example provided for Sense 4 ("an inordinate proportion of the book") is a perfect match for the usage "a higher proportion of their personal staffs".

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   Example for Sense 4: "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations".
    *   This example is the key. It shows that "proportion of [whole] [used for/allocated to] [part]" maps to Sense 4.

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   The target sentence is "Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices".
    *   This is a comparison of ratios.
    *   The example "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations" is a perfect match.

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   Wait, let me re-read Sense 1 again. "the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole".
    *   Actually, in many contexts, "proportion" as a part of a whole is Sense 1.
    *   Let's look at Sense 4 again: "the relation between things (or parts of things) with respect to their comparative quantity, magnitude, or degree".
    *   "Proportion of their personal staffs to district offices" -> This is the relation between the part (district office staff) and the whole (personal staff).
    *   Let's compare:
        *   Sense 1: Part / Whole = Quotient.
        *   Sense 4: Part : Whole = Relation/Ratio.
    *   In the sentence "a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices", it's talking about the ratio.
    *   The example "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations" is the strongest clue. It matches the target sentence's structure.

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   Example for Sense 4: "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations".
    *   Target: "a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices".
    *   The match is very strong.

    *   Wait, let me re-read the target sentence one more time. "Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices".
    *   Is it "proportion of [whole] to [part]" or "proportion of [whole] [allocated] to [part]"?
    *   It's "proportion of [their personal staffs] [allocated] to [district offices]".
    *   This means (Staff in District Offices) / (Total Staff).
    *   This is exactly what Sense 1 describes: "the quotient obtained when the magnitude of a part is divided by the magnitude of the whole".
    *   But Sense 4's example "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations" is also (Quotations) / (Total Book).
    *   Why are there two senses for this?
    *   Sense 1 is the *result* (the quotient).
    *   Sense 4 is the *relation* (the ratio).
    *   In "a higher proportion", "higher" modifies the proportion. Both a quotient and a ratio can be "higher".
    *   However, the example provided for Sense 4 is almost a mirror of the target sentence. In WordNet-style disambiguation, the examples are often the most reliable guide.

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   Example 4: "an inordinate proportion of the book is given over to quotations".
    *   Target: "a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices".
    *   The structure "proportion of [whole] [allocated/given] to [part]" is exactly what's in the example for Sense 4.

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   If the sentence was "The proportion was 0.5", that would be Sense 1.
    *   If the sentence is "A large proportion of the staff", that's Sense 4.
    *   "A higher proportion of their personal staffs" fits the "A large proportion of the staff" pattern.

    *   Sense 1: quotient (the number).
    *   Sense 4: relation (the ratio).
    *   Target: "a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices".
    *   This is a comparative relation.
    *   Sense 4 is the best fit.


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: personal
Target surface form: personal
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>personal</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=personal%3:00:00:: | definition=concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality | examples=a personal favor; for your personal use
2. sense_key=personal%5:00:00:subjective:00 | definition=particular to a given individual
3. sense_key=personal%3:01:01:: | definition=of or arising from personality | examples=personal magnetism
4. sense_key=personal%5:00:00:physical:00 | definition=intimately concerning a person's body or physical being | examples=personal hygiene
5. sense_key=personal%3:01:00:: | definition=indicating grammatical person | examples=personal verb endings

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

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

finish_reason: stop

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

role: assistant

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `personal`
    *   Target surface form: `personal`
    *   Context: "...Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their <t>personal</t> staffs to district offices..." and "...changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate..."
    *   Meaning: In the context of "personal staff" for a legislator, it refers to staff members who are employed directly by the individual legislator, as opposed to committee staff or other shared resources.

    *   Sense 1: `concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality` (e.g., personal favor, personal use).
    *   Sense 2: `particular to a given individual` (subjective/individual).
    *   Sense 3: `of or arising from personality` (e.g., personal magnetism).
    *   Sense 4: `intimately concerning a person's body or physical being` (e.g., personal hygiene).
    *   Sense 5: `indicating grammatical person` (e.g., personal verb endings).

    *   "Personal staff" in a political context means staff assigned to a specific individual (the senator or representative), rather than to a committee or the party.
    *   Sense 1 ("concerning or affecting a particular person") is close, but often implies private life.
    *   Sense 2 ("particular to a given individual") fits well. The staff is particular to that specific individual legislator.
    *   Let's re-evaluate Sense 1 vs Sense 2.
        *   Sense 1: "concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality".
        *   Sense 2: "particular to a given individual".
    *   In "personal staff", the staff is *assigned to* or *belongs to* the individual. This is a matter of being "particular to a given individual".

    *   Wait, let's look at Sense 1 again: "concerning or affecting a particular person". A "personal assistant" or "personal staff" is someone who serves a particular person.
    *   Let's look at Sense 2: "particular to a given individual". This often refers to things like "personal opinion" or "personal taste" (subjective).
    *   Looking at the provided candidate senses:
        1. `personal%3:00:00::` (concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality)
        2. `personal%5:00:00:subjective:00` (particular to a given individual)
    *   The "subjective" tag in Sense 2 strongly suggests it refers to internal states or opinions.
    *   Sense 1 is the broader sense of "belonging to or relating to a specific person". "Personal staff" fits this better than "subjective".

    *   "Personal staff" = staff for a particular person.
    *   Sense 1: "concerning or affecting a particular person".
    *   Sense 2: "particular to a given individual" (tagged as "subjective").
    *   Sense 3: "of or arising from personality".
    *   Sense 4: "physical being".
    *   Sense 5: "grammatical person".

    Sense 1 is the most appropriate for "personal staff".

    *   Sense 1: "concerning or affecting a particular person" -> "personal staff" (staff for a particular person).
    *   Sense 2: "particular to a given individual" (subjective) -> "personal opinion".
    *   Sense 3: "personality" -> "personal charm".
    *   Sense 4: "physical" -> "personal hygiene".
    *   Sense 5: "grammatical" -> "personal pronoun".

    Sense 1 is the best fit.

currency: USD

source: unavailable


[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: staff
Target surface form: staffs
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>staffs</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=staff%1:14:01:: | definition=personnel who assist their superior in carrying out an assigned task | examples=the hospital has an excellent nursing staff; the general relied on his staff to make routine decisions
2. sense_key=staff%1:06:00:: | definition=a strong rod or stick with a specialized utilitarian purpose | examples=he walked with the help of a wooden staff
3. sense_key=staff%1:14:00:: | definition=the body of teachers and administrators at a school | synonyms=faculty | examples=the dean addressed the letter to the entire staff of the university
4. sense_key=staff%1:27:00:: | definition=building material consisting of plaster and hair; used to cover external surfaces of temporary structure (as at an exposition) or for decoration
5. sense_key=staff%1:10:01:: | definition=a rod carried as a symbol
6. sense_key=staff%1:10:00:: | definition=(music) the system of five horizontal lines on which the musical notes are written | synonyms=stave

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `staff`
    *   Target surface form: `staffs`
    *   Context: "Finally, as shown in the table, Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal <t>staffs</t> to district offices..."
    *   Surrounding context: The text discusses GOP and Democratic senators, personal staff budgets, personal staffing decisions, and committee staff. It's about the people employed by legislators to help them with their duties.

    *   Sense 1: `personnel who assist their superior in carrying out an assigned task` (Example: nursing staff, general's staff).
    *   Sense 2: `a strong rod or stick with a specialized utilitarian purpose` (Example: wooden staff).
    *   Sense 3: `the body of teachers and administrators at a school` (Synonym: faculty).
    *   Sense 4: `building material consisting of plaster and hair`.
    *   Sense 5: `a rod carried as a symbol`.
    *   Sense 6: `(music) the system of five horizontal lines`.

    *   The context refers to "personal staffs" allocated to "district offices" by "Democrats" (legislators).
    *   This clearly refers to the personnel employed by the politicians.
    *   Sense 1 describes personnel assisting a superior.
    *   Sense 3 is specifically for schools (faculty).
    *   Senses 2, 4, 5, and 6 are completely unrelated.

    *   Sense 1 is the general term for personnel assisting a superior.
    *   Sense 3 is a specific type of staff (academic).
    *   The context is political/governmental, not academic. Therefore, Sense 1 is the correct fit.


[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: office
Target surface form: offices
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>offices</t> -- 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=office%1:06:00:: | definition=place of business where professional or clerical duties are performed | synonyms=business office | examples=he rented an office in the new building
2. sense_key=office%1:14:01:: | definition=an administrative unit of government | synonyms=agency, federal agency, government agency, bureau, authority | examples=the Central Intelligence Agency; the Census Bureau
3. sense_key=office%1:04:01:: | definition=the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group | synonyms=function, part, role | examples=the function of a teacher; the government must do its part
4. sense_key=office%1:26:00:: | definition=(of a government or government official) holding an office means being in power | synonyms=power | examples=being in office already gives a candidate a great advantage; during his first year in office
5. sense_key=office%1:14:00:: | definition=professional or clerical workers in an office | synonyms=office staff | examples=the whole office was late the morning of the blizzard
6. sense_key=office%1:04:00:: | definition=a religious rite or service prescribed by ecclesiastical authorities | examples=the offices of the mass
7. sense_key=office%1:04:02:: | definition=a job in an organization | synonyms=position, post, berth, spot, billet, place | examples=he occupied a post in the treasury

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `office`
    *   Target surface form: `offices`
    *   Context: "...Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district <t>offices</t> -- where local benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices."

    *   Sense 1: `place of business where professional or clerical duties are performed` (e.g., "he rented an office in the new building").
    *   Sense 2: `an administrative unit of government` (e.g., "the Central Intelligence Agency").
    *   Sense 3: `the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group` (e.g., "the function of a teacher").
    *   Sense 4: `(of a government or government official) holding an office means being in power` (e.g., "during his first year in office").
    *   Sense 5: `professional or clerical workers in an office` (e.g., "the whole office was late").
    *   Sense 6: `a religious rite or service prescribed by ecclesiastical authorities` (e.g., "the offices of the mass").
    *   Sense 7: `a job in an organization` (e.g., "he occupied a post in the treasury").

    *   The text mentions "district offices" and "Washington offices".
    *   It discusses allocating "personal staffs" to these offices.
    *   It describes these offices as places "where local benefit-seeking duties matter more".
    *   This clearly refers to physical locations (places of business/work) where staff members are based.

    *   Sense 1: "place of business where professional or clerical duties are performed". This fits perfectly. A district office is a physical place where staff perform their duties.
    *   Sense 2: "an administrative unit of government". While a district office is part of a government structure, "district office" usually refers to the physical location rather than the agency itself (like the CIA).
    *   Sense 5: "professional or clerical workers in an office". The text says staff are allocated *to* the offices, meaning the offices are the destination/location, not the people themselves.
    *   Sense 7: "a job in an organization". "District offices" (plural) refers to locations, not individual jobs.

    *   The context "district offices" vs "Washington offices" strongly implies physical locations. Sense 1 is the best fit.


[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: local
Target surface form: local
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>local</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=local%3:00:01:: | definition=relating to or applicable to or concerned with the administration of a city or town or district rather than a larger area | examples=local taxes; local authorities
2. sense_key=local%3:01:01:: | definition=of or belonging to or characteristic of a particular locality or neighborhood | examples=local customs; local schools
3. sense_key=local%3:00:02:: | definition=affecting only a restricted part or area of the body | examples=local anesthesia

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `local`
    *   Target surface form: `local`
    *   Context: "...Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where <t>local</t> benefit - seeking duties matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `local%3:00:01::`: relating to or applicable to or concerned with the administration of a city or town or district rather than a larger area (e.g., local taxes; local authorities).
        2.  `local%3:01:01::`: of or belonging to or characteristic of a particular locality or neighborhood (e.g., local customs; local schools).
        3.  `local%3:00:02::`: affecting only a restricted part or area of the body (e.g., local anesthesia).

    *   The context discusses "district offices," "benefit-seeking duties," and contrasts them with "national policy making activities" and "Washington offices."
    *   The term "local benefit-seeking" refers to actions taken by legislators to benefit their specific district or constituency (the local area they represent) as opposed to the nation as a whole.
    *   This relates to the administration or concerns of a specific district/area rather than a larger area (the nation).

    *   Sense 1: "relating to or applicable to or concerned with the administration of a city or town or district rather than a larger area." This fits perfectly with "district offices" and the contrast with "national policy making."
    *   Sense 2: "of or belonging to or characteristic of a particular locality or neighborhood." This is more about culture, customs, or specific local entities (like schools) rather than administrative/political representation of a district.
    *   Sense 3: "affecting only a restricted part or area of the body." Clearly incorrect.

    *   The context is about political representation and the administration of benefits for a specific district. Sense 1 specifically mentions "administration of a city or town or district rather than a larger area," which aligns with the contrast between "district offices" and "Washington offices" (national).


[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: duty
Target surface form: duties
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>duties</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=duty%1:04:00:: | definition=the social force that binds you to the courses of action demanded by that force; ; - John D.Rockefeller Jr | synonyms=responsibility, obligation | examples=we must instill a sense of duty in our children; every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty
2. sense_key=duty%1:04:02:: | definition=work that you are obliged to perform for moral or legal reasons | examples=the duties of the job
3. sense_key=duty%1:21:00:: | definition=a government tax on imports or exports | synonyms=tariff | examples=they signed a treaty to lower duties on trade between their countries

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

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `duty`
    *   Target surface form: `duties`
    *   Context: "...Democrats allocate a higher proportion of their personal staffs to district offices -- where local benefit - seeking <t>duties</t> matter more and national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `duty%1:04:00`: social force, responsibility, obligation (abstract sense of duty).
        2.  `duty%1:04:02`: work that you are obliged to perform for moral or legal reasons (specific tasks/responsibilities of a job).
        3.  `duty%1:21:00`: government tax on imports/exports (tariff).

    *   The sentence discusses "personal staffs" and "district offices."
    *   It mentions "local benefit-seeking duties" in contrast to "national policy making activities."
    *   The "duties" here refer to the tasks or work performed by the staff members in their roles.

    *   Sense 1 (social force/obligation) is too abstract.
    *   Sense 2 (work obliged to perform/job duties) fits perfectly. The example "the duties of the job" matches the context of staff working in district offices.
    *   Sense 3 (tax/tariff) is completely irrelevant.

    *   The target word "duties" refers to the professional tasks/responsibilities of the congressional staff. This aligns with sense 2.


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

[User]
Target lemma: national
Target surface form: national
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>national</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=national%3:01:00:: | definition=of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country | examples=national hero; national anthem
2. sense_key=national%3:00:00:: | definition=limited to or in the interests of a particular nation | examples=national interests; isolationism is a strictly national policy
3. sense_key=national%3:00:01:: | definition=concerned with or applicable to or belonging to an entire nation or country | examples=the national government; national elections
4. sense_key=national%5:00:00:public:00 | definition=owned or maintained for the public by the national government | examples=national parks
5. sense_key=national%5:00:00:domestic:00 | definition=inside the country | synonyms=home, interior, internal | examples=the British Home Office has broader responsibilities than the United States Department of the Interior; the nation's internal politics
6. sense_key=national%3:01:02:: | definition=characteristic of or peculiar to the people of a nation | examples=a national trait
7. sense_key=national%3:01:01:: | definition=of or relating to nationality | examples=national origin

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

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `national`
    *   Target surface form: `national`
    *   Context: "...where local benefit-seeking duties matter more and <t>national</t> policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices."
    *   Key contrast: "local benefit-seeking" vs. "national policy making".

    *   Sense 1: `of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country` (General)
    *   Sense 2: `limited to or in the interests of a particular nation` (Focus on interests/isolationism)
    *   Sense 3: `concerned with or applicable to or belonging to an entire nation or country` (Focus on scope: entire nation, e.g., national government, national elections)
    *   Sense 4: `owned or maintained for the public by the national government` (e.g., national parks)
    *   Sense 5: `inside the country` (domestic/internal)
    *   Sense 6: `characteristic of or peculiar to the people of a nation` (e.g., national trait)
    *   Sense 7: `of or relating to nationality` (e.g., national origin)

    *   The context contrasts "local benefit-seeking" (specific to a district/constituency) with "national policy making" (affecting the whole country).
    *   "National policy making" refers to policies that apply to the entire nation, not just a local area.
    *   Sense 3 ("concerned with or applicable to or belonging to an entire nation or country") fits perfectly here, as it emphasizes the scope (entire nation) in contrast to the local scope.
    *   Sense 1 is too general.
    *   Sense 2 is about interests of *a* particular nation (often in an international context).
    *   Sense 4 is about ownership (parks).
    *   Sense 5 is about domestic vs. foreign.
    *   Sense 6 is about traits.
    *   Sense 7 is about nationality.

    *   The contrast is local vs. national.
    *   "National policy making" = policy making for the entire nation.
    *   Sense 3: "concerned with or applicable to or belonging to an entire nation or country". This is the most precise fit.


[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: policy
Target surface form: policy
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>policy</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=policy%1:09:00:: | definition=a plan of action adopted by an individual or social group | examples=it was a policy of retribution; a politician keeps changing his policies
2. sense_key=policy%1:10:00:: | definition=a line of argument rationalizing the course of action of a government | examples=they debated the policy or impolicy of the proposed legislation
3. sense_key=policy%1:10:02:: | definition=written contract or certificate of insurance | synonyms=insurance policy, insurance | examples=you should have read the small print on your policy

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `policy`
    *   Target surface form: `policy`
    *   Context: "...to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making..." and "...where local benefit-seeking duties matter more and national <t>policy</t> making activities matter less relative to Washington offices."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `policy%1:09:00::`: a plan of action adopted by an individual or social group.
        2.  `policy%1:10:00::`: a line of argument rationalizing the course of action of a government.
        3.  `policy%1:10:02::`: written contract or certificate of insurance.

    *   The context discusses "national policy making" in the context of congressional voting and staffing.
    *   It contrasts "local benefit-seeking" (pork barrel politics) with "national policy making" (creating laws/plans for the country).
    *   Sense 3 (insurance) is clearly incorrect.
    *   Sense 2 (line of argument rationalizing action) is too narrow; "policy making" refers to the actual creation of the plans/laws, not just the arguments rationalizing them.
    *   Sense 1 (a plan of action adopted by an individual or social group) fits best. In this case, the "social group" is the government/nation. "Policy making" is the process of creating these plans of action.

    *   Sense 1: "a plan of action adopted by an individual or social group" -> Fits "national policy making" (creating plans of action for the nation).
    *   Sense 2: "a line of argument rationalizing the course of action of a government" -> This is more about the *justification* for the policy rather than the policy itself.
    *   Sense 3: "written contract or certificate of insurance" -> Irrelevant.

    *   The term "policy making" almost always refers to the process of creating "policies" in the sense of plans of action (Sense 1).


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

[User]
Target lemma: making
Target surface form: making
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>making</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=making%1:04:00:: | definition=the act that results in something coming to be | synonyms=devising, fashioning | examples=the devising of plans; the fashioning of pots and pans
2. sense_key=making%1:07:00:: | definition=an attribute that must be met or complied with and that fits a person for something | synonyms=qualification | examples=her qualifications for the job are excellent; one of the qualifications for admission is an academic degree
3. sense_key=making%1:06:00:: | definition=(usually plural) the components needed for making or doing something | examples=the recipe listed all the makings for a chocolate cake

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `making`
    *   Target surface form: `making`
    *   Context: "...national policy <t>making</t> activities matter less relative to Washington offices."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `making%1:04:00::`: the act that results in something coming to be (synonyms: devising, fashioning).
        2.  `making%1:07:00::`: an attribute that must be met or complied with (synonym: qualification).
        3.  `making%1:06:00::`: (usually plural) the components needed for making or doing something.

    *   The phrase is "national policy making activities".
    *   "Policy making" refers to the process of creating, devising, or establishing policies.
    *   This aligns with the act of bringing something (a policy) into existence.

    *   Sense 1: "the act that results in something coming to be" (e.g., devising plans). This fits "policy making" perfectly.
    *   Sense 2: "an attribute that must be met" (qualification). This does not fit.
    *   Sense 3: "the components needed for making or doing something" (e.g., makings of a cake). This does not fit.

    *   Sense 1 is the only one that describes the process of creation or devising, which is exactly what "policy making" is.


[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: activity
Target surface form: activities
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>activities</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=activity%1:04:00:: | definition=any specific behavior | examples=they avoided all recreational activity
2. sense_key=activity%1:26:00:: | definition=the state of being active | synonyms=action, activeness | examples=his sphere of activity; he is out of action
3. sense_key=activity%1:22:00:: | definition=an organic process that takes place in the body | synonyms=bodily process, body process, bodily function | examples=respiratory activity
4. sense_key=activity%1:26:01:: | definition=(chemistry) the capacity of a substance to take part in a chemical reaction | examples=catalytic activity
5. sense_key=activity%1:22:01:: | definition=a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings) | synonyms=natural process, natural action, action | examples=the action of natural forces; volcanic activity
6. sense_key=activity%1:07:00:: | definition=the trait of being active; moving or acting rapidly and energetically | synonyms=activeness | examples=the level of activity declines with age

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `activity`
    *   Target surface form: `activities`
    *   Context: "...where local benefit-seeking duties matter more and national policy making <t>activities</t> matter less relative to Washington offices."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `activity%1:04:00`: any specific behavior (e.g., recreational activity)
        2.  `activity%1:26:00`: the state of being active (e.g., sphere of activity)
        3.  `activity%1:22:00`: an organic process that takes place in the body (e.g., respiratory activity)
        4.  `activity%1:26:01`: (chemistry) capacity of a substance to take part in a chemical reaction
        5.  `activity%1:22:01`: a process existing in or produced by nature (e.g., volcanic activity)
        6.  `activity%1:07:00`: the trait of being active; moving or acting rapidly and energetically

    *   The phrase is "national policy making activities".
    *   "Policy making activities" refers to the specific things people do to make policy (drafting bills, debating, voting, negotiating).
    *   This describes specific behaviors or actions associated with a role or goal.

    *   Sense 1: "any specific behavior" (e.g., recreational activity). This fits well. Policy making consists of specific behaviors/actions.
    *   Sense 2: "the state of being active" (e.g., sphere of activity). This is more about the *condition* of being active rather than the *actions* themselves.
    *   Sense 3: "organic process" (body). Incorrect.
    *   Sense 4: "chemistry". Incorrect.
    *   Sense 5: "natural process". Incorrect.
    *   Sense 6: "the trait of being active". Incorrect.

    *   "National policy making activities" refers to the set of specific tasks or behaviors involved in making policy.
    *   Sense 1 ("any specific behavior") is the most appropriate fit for "activities" in the sense of tasks or actions performed.

    *   Sense 1: `activity%1:04:00` (any specific behavior)
    *   Sense 2: `activity%1:26:00` (the state of being active)
    *   Sense 6: `activity%1:07:00` (the trait of being active)
    *   Comparing 1 and 2: "Policy making activities" are the actual things done (behaviors/tasks), not just the general state of being active.

    *   Sense 1 is the best fit.


[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: relative
Target surface form: relative
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>relative</t> 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=relative%3:00:00:: | definition=estimated by comparison; not absolute or complete | synonyms=comparative | examples=a relative stranger
2. sense_key=relative%5:00:00:proportionate:00 | definition=properly related in size or degree or other measurable characteristics; usually followed by `to' | synonyms=proportional | examples=the punishment ought to be proportional to the crime; earnings relative to production

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `relative`
    *   Target surface form: `relative`
    *   Context: "...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 <t>relative</t> to Washington offices."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `relative%3:00:00::`: estimated by comparison; not absolute or complete (synonym: comparative). Example: "a relative stranger".
        2.  `relative%5:00:00:proportionate:00`: properly related in size or degree or other measurable characteristics; usually followed by `to` (synonym: proportional). Example: "earnings relative to production".

    *   The sentence compares the importance of "national policy making activities" in district offices versus Washington offices.
    *   "...national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices."
    *   This means that when compared to Washington offices, national policy making activities matter less in district offices.
    *   It's a comparison of degree/importance between two locations.

    *   Sense 1: "estimated by comparison; not absolute or complete". This often describes a quality (e.g., "relative success", "relative stranger").
    *   Sense 2: "properly related in size or degree or other measurable characteristics; usually followed by `to`". This describes a relationship of proportion or comparison in degree between two things.

    *   The phrase "relative to" is explicitly mentioned in the definition of Sense 2.
    *   The context "matter less relative to Washington offices" is comparing the degree of importance in one place versus another.
    *   Sense 2's synonym "proportional" and example "earnings relative to production" fit the pattern of comparing one metric (importance of policy making) across two different entities (district offices vs. Washington offices).
    *   Sense 1 is more about something being "comparative" rather than "absolute" (e.g., "a relative success" means it was successful compared to something else, but maybe not an absolute success). Here, the comparison is explicit ("relative to Washington offices").

    *   Sense 2 specifically mentions "usually followed by 'to'".
    *   The context is "relative to Washington offices".
    *   The comparison is about the degree to which something "matters".

    *   Sense 1: "estimated by comparison; not absolute or complete".
    *   Sense 2: "properly related in size or degree... usually followed by 'to'".
    *   The usage "X matters less relative to Y" fits the "degree" and "followed by 'to'" criteria of Sense 2.

    *   Wait, let me re-read Sense 1. "estimated by comparison".
    *   Let me re-read Sense 2. "properly related in size or degree... proportional".
    *   Is "matter less relative to" the same as "proportional to"? Not exactly.
    *   However, "relative to" in the sense of "compared with" is very common.
    *   Let's look at the WordNet structure for "relative" (adjective).
    *   Sense 1: comparative (e.g., relative humidity, relative stranger).
    *   Sense 2: proportional (e.g., earnings relative to production).
    *   In the sentence "national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices", it means "compared to".
    *   Is "compared to" closer to "comparative" (Sense 1) or "proportional" (Sense 2)?
    *   Actually, "relative to" meaning "in comparison with" is often mapped to the "proportional" sense in some WordNet versions or a separate "compared to" sense.
    *   Let's look at the examples again.
        *   Sense 1: "a relative stranger" (comparative).
        *   Sense 2: "earnings relative to production" (proportional).
    *   "Matter less relative to Washington offices" is comparing the degree of importance. This is a comparison of degree.
    *   Sense 2: "properly related in size or degree".
    *   Sense 1: "estimated by comparison; not absolute or complete".
    *   The phrase "relative to" is a strong marker for Sense 2 in these specific WordNet options.

    *   Sense 1: "relative stranger" -> "comparatively" a stranger.
    *   Sense 2: "earnings relative to production" -> "proportional to".
    *   "Matter less relative to Washington offices" -> "Matter less in comparison to".
    *   If I have to choose between "comparative" and "proportional", "proportional" (Sense 2) often covers the "relative to" construction for degrees/amounts.

    *   Sense 1: relative (adj) - comparative.
    *   Sense 2: relative (adj) - proportional.
    *   "Relative to" is the key. In many linguistic datasets, "relative to" meaning "compared with" is associated with the proportional/degree sense.

    *   "national policy making activities matter less relative to Washington offices"
    *   This means: (Importance in District Offices) < (Importance in Washington Offices).
    *   This is a comparison of degree.
    *   Sense 2: "properly related in size or degree... usually followed by 'to'".
    *   This matches perfectly.


[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: office
Target surface form: offices
Context:
First, economists James Bennett and Thomas DiLorenzo find that GOP senators turn back roughly 10% more of their allocated personal staff budgets than Democrats do. To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>offices</t>. 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.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=office%1:06:00:: | definition=place of business where professional or clerical duties are performed | synonyms=business office | examples=he rented an office in the new building
2. sense_key=office%1:14:01:: | definition=an administrative unit of government | synonyms=agency, federal agency, government agency, bureau, authority | examples=the Central Intelligence Agency; the Census Bureau
3. sense_key=office%1:04:01:: | definition=the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group | synonyms=function, part, role | examples=the function of a teacher; the government must do its part
4. sense_key=office%1:26:00:: | definition=(of a government or government official) holding an office means being in power | synonyms=power | examples=being in office already gives a candidate a great advantage; during his first year in office
5. sense_key=office%1:14:00:: | definition=professional or clerical workers in an office | synonyms=office staff | examples=the whole office was late the morning of the blizzard
6. sense_key=office%1:04:00:: | definition=a religious rite or service prescribed by ecclesiastical authorities | examples=the offices of the mass
7. sense_key=office%1:04:02:: | definition=a job in an organization | synonyms=position, post, berth, spot, billet, place | examples=he occupied a post in the treasury

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `office`
    *   Target surface form: `offices`
    *   Context: "...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 <t>offices</t>."

    *   The sentence compares "district offices" and "Washington offices".
    *   It discusses where "personal staffs" are allocated.
    *   It mentions "local benefit-seeking duties" (district offices) vs. "national policy making activities" (Washington offices).
    *   This clearly refers to physical locations (places of business/work) where staff members are based.

    *   Sense 1: `place of business where professional or clerical duties are performed` (Synonym: business office).
    *   Sense 2: `an administrative unit of government` (Synonym: agency, bureau).
    *   Sense 3: `the actions and activities assigned to or required or expected of a person or group` (Synonym: function, part, role).
    *   Sense 4: `(of a government or government official) holding an office means being in power` (Synonym: power).
    *   Sense 5: `professional or clerical workers in an office` (Synonym: office staff).
    *   Sense 6: `a religious rite or service prescribed by ecclesiastical authorities`.
    *   Sense 7: `a job in an organization` (Synonym: position, post).

    *   The context refers to "district offices" and "Washington offices" as locations where staff are allocated.
    *   Sense 1 (place of business) fits perfectly.
    *   Sense 2 (administrative unit) is too broad (e.g., CIA, Census Bureau). A "district office" is a physical location of a representative's operation, not a separate government agency.
    *   Sense 3 (function/role) doesn't fit "Washington offices".
    *   Sense 4 (power) doesn't fit.
    *   Sense 5 (staff) doesn't fit because the staff are *allocated to* the offices.
    *   Sense 6 (religious rite) doesn't fit.
    *   Sense 7 (job/position) doesn't fit.

    *   The target "offices" refers to the physical locations in Washington and the districts.
    *   Sense 1 is the best fit.


[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: examination
Target surface form: examination
Context:
To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>examination</t> 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-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=examination%1:04:00:: | definition=the act of examining something closely (as for mistakes) | synonyms=scrutiny
2. sense_key=examination%1:10:00:: | definition=a set of questions or exercises evaluating skill or knowledge | synonyms=exam, test | examples=when the test was stolen the professor had to make a new set of questions
3. sense_key=examination%1:10:01:: | definition=formal systematic questioning | synonyms=interrogation, interrogatory
4. sense_key=examination%1:09:03:: | definition=a detailed inspection of your conscience (as done daily by Jesuits) | synonyms=examen
5. sense_key=examination%1:04:02:: | definition=the act of giving students or candidates a test (as by questions) to determine what they know or have learned | synonyms=testing

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `examination`
    *   Target surface form: `examination`
    *   Context: "An <t>examination</t> of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987... reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to..."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `examination%1:04:00::`: the act of examining something closely (as for mistakes) | synonyms=scrutiny
        2.  `examination%1:10:00::`: a set of questions or exercises evaluating skill or knowledge | synonyms=exam, test
        3.  `examination%1:10:01::`: formal systematic questioning | synonyms=interrogation, interrogatory
        4.  `examination%1:09:03::`: a detailed inspection of your conscience (as done daily by Jesuits) | synonyms=examen
        5.  `examination%1:04:02::`: the act of giving students or candidates a test (as by questions) to determine what they know or have learned | synonyms=testing

    *   The sentence is: "An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987... reveals that..."
    *   Here, "examination" refers to the process of analyzing or studying data/changes to draw a conclusion.
    *   It is not a test for students (Sense 2, 5).
    *   It is not a formal interrogation (Sense 3).
    *   It is not a religious inspection of conscience (Sense 4).
    *   It is a close study or analysis of data/facts.

    *   Sense 1: "the act of examining something closely (as for mistakes)" / synonym: "scrutiny".
    *   While "mistakes" is mentioned in the gloss, the core meaning is "the act of examining something closely" or "scrutiny". In academic or analytical writing, "an examination of [data/changes]" means a close study or analysis.

    *   Sense 1 fits best as it describes the analytical process of looking closely at the data (changes in staffing decisions) to find a result.


[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: change
Target surface form: changes
Context:
To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>changes</t> 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-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=change%1:11:00:: | definition=an event that occurs when something passes from one state or phase to another | synonyms=alteration, modification | examples=the change was intended to increase sales; this storm is certainly a change for the worse
2. sense_key=change%1:24:00:: | definition=a relational difference between states; especially between states before and after some event | examples=he attributed the change to their marriage
3. sense_key=change%1:04:00:: | definition=the action of changing something | examples=the change of government had no impact on the economy; his change on abortion cost him the election
4. sense_key=change%1:19:00:: | definition=the result of alteration or modification | examples=there were marked changes in the lining of the lungs; there had been no change in the mountains
5. sense_key=change%1:21:02:: | definition=the balance of money received when the amount you tender is greater than the amount due | examples=I paid with a twenty and pocketed the change
6. sense_key=change%1:06:01:: | definition=a thing that is different | examples=he inspected several changes before selecting one
7. sense_key=change%1:06:00:: | definition=a different or fresh set of clothes | examples=she brought a change in her overnight bag
8. sense_key=change%1:21:01:: | definition=coins of small denomination regarded collectively | examples=he had a pocketful of change
9. sense_key=change%1:21:03:: | definition=money received in return for its equivalent in a larger denomination or a different currency | examples=he got change for a twenty and used it to pay the taxi driver
10. sense_key=change%1:07:00:: | definition=a difference that is usually pleasant | synonyms=variety | examples=he goes to France for variety; it is a refreshing change to meet a woman mechanic

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `change`
    *   Target surface form: `changes`
    *   Context: "An examination of <t>changes</t> in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987..."
    *   Meaning: The text is discussing the differences or modifications in how personal staffing decisions were made between two time periods (1986 and 1987).

    *   Sense 1: `an event that occurs when something passes from one state or phase to another` (alteration, modification).
    *   Sense 2: `a relational difference between states; especially between states before and after some event`.
    *   Sense 3: `the action of changing something`.
    *   Sense 4: `the result of alteration or modification`.
    *   Sense 5: `balance of money received...` (money).
    *   Sense 6: `a thing that is different`.
    *   Sense 7: `a different or fresh set of clothes`.
    *   Sense 8: `coins of small denomination...` (money).
    *   Sense 9: `money received in return for its equivalent...` (money).
    *   Sense 10: `a difference that is usually pleasant` (variety).

    *   The context "changes in personal staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987" refers to the *results* or the *observed differences* in those decisions over time.
    *   Sense 1 (event) vs. Sense 2 (relational difference) vs. Sense 4 (result of alteration).
    *   Sense 2: "a relational difference between states; especially between states before and after some event". This fits very well because it's comparing staffing decisions in 1986 vs 1987.
    *   Sense 4: "the result of alteration or modification". This also fits, as the changes are the results of the decisions being altered.
    *   Sense 1: "an event that occurs when something passes from one state or phase to another". This is more about the *process* or the *occurrence* of the change.

    *   "An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions..."
    *   Is it the *event* of changing (Sense 1), the *relational difference* between the two years (Sense 2), or the *result* of the modification (Sense 4)?
    *   In academic/statistical contexts, "changes in [variable] between [time A] and [time B]" usually refers to the difference in values or states (Sense 2).
    *   Let's look at Sense 4 again: "the result of alteration or modification". Example: "marked changes in the lining of the lungs". This is more about physical or structural results.
    *   Let's look at Sense 2 again: "a relational difference between states; especially between states before and after some event". Example: "he attributed the change to their marriage". This fits the "before and after" (1986 vs 1987) aspect perfectly.

    *   Sense 1: Event.
    *   Sense 2: Relational difference (before/after).
    *   Sense 3: Action of changing.
    *   Sense 4: Result of alteration.

    The phrase "changes in personal staffing decisions... between 1986 and 1987" describes the difference in the state of staffing decisions between those two points in time. This aligns most closely with Sense 2.

    Wait, let me re-read Sense 4: "the result of alteration or modification". If the decisions were altered, the "changes" are the results.
    Let me re-read Sense 1: "an event that occurs when something passes from one state or phase to another".

    Comparing Sense 2 and Sense 4:
    Sense 2: "a relational difference between states; especially between states before and after some event".
    Sense 4: "the result of alteration or modification".

    In the context of "changes in [X] between [Year 1] and [Year 2]", the author is looking at the *difference* in X.

    Let's check Sense 1 again: "an event that occurs when something passes from one state or phase to another". Synonyms: alteration, modification.

    Actually, looking at common WordNet usage for "changes in [variable]", Sense 4 ("the result of alteration or modification") is often used for observable changes. However, Sense 2 specifically mentions "between states before and after some event", which matches "between 1986 and 1987" perfectly.

    Let's double-check Sense 2's example: "he attributed the change to their marriage". The change is the difference in state before and after the marriage.
    In the target sentence: "changes in personal staffing decisions... between 1986 and 1987". The change is the difference in decisions before and after the party control changed.

    Sense 2 seems the most precise fit for the "between X and Y" temporal comparison.

    *Self-Correction:* Let me look at Sense 4 again. "there were marked changes in the lining of the lungs". This is a physical result. Staffing decisions aren't physical. Sense 2 is more abstract and relational.

    *Wait*, let me look at Sense 1 again. "the change was intended to increase sales". This is an event/alteration.

    Let's re-evaluate Sense 2 vs Sense 4.
    Sense 2: relational difference between states.
    Sense 4: result of alteration.

    If I say "the change in temperature", is that a relational difference (Sense 2) or a result of alteration (Sense 4)? Usually, it's the difference.

    Let's look at the context again: "An examination of changes in personal staffing decisions... reveals that the personal staffing differences noted in the table can not be attributed to..."
    The author explicitly uses the word "differences" later in the sentence to refer back to these "changes". This strongly points to Sense 2 ("a relational difference between states").

    Sense 2: "a relational difference between states; especially between states before and after some event".
    Context: "changes in personal staffing decisions... between 1986 and 1987".
    This is a perfect match.


[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: personal
Target surface form: personal
Context:
To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>personal</t> 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-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=personal%3:00:00:: | definition=concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality | examples=a personal favor; for your personal use
2. sense_key=personal%5:00:00:subjective:00 | definition=particular to a given individual
3. sense_key=personal%3:01:01:: | definition=of or arising from personality | examples=personal magnetism
4. sense_key=personal%5:00:00:physical:00 | definition=intimately concerning a person's body or physical being | examples=personal hygiene
5. sense_key=personal%3:01:00:: | definition=indicating grammatical person | examples=personal verb endings

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `personal`
    *   Target surface form: `personal`
    *   Context: "An examination of changes in <t>personal</t> staffing decisions in the Senate between 1986 and 1987..."
    *   Other occurrences of "personal" in the text: "primary duty of personal staff", "proportion of their personal staffs".

    *   The text discusses "personal staff" and "personal staffing decisions" in the context of members of Congress (Republicans and Democrats).
    *   "Personal staff" refers to the staff members employed directly by an individual legislator, as opposed to "committee staff" (mentioned later: "over other resources such as committee staff").
    *   Therefore, "personal" here means "belonging to or assigned to a particular person" (the individual legislator).

    *   Sense 1: `concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality` (e.g., "personal favor", "personal use").
    *   Sense 2: `particular to a given individual` (subjective).
    *   Sense 3: `of or arising from personality` (e.g., "personal magnetism").
    *   Sense 4: `intimately concerning a person's body or physical being` (e.g., "personal hygiene").
    *   Sense 5: `indicating grammatical person` (e.g., "personal verb endings").

    *   Sense 1 ("concerning or affecting a particular person") fits best. "Personal staff" are staff members who serve a particular person (the legislator).
    *   Sense 2 ("particular to a given individual") is often used for subjective opinions or traits.
    *   Sense 3, 4, and 5 are clearly incorrect.

    *   Wait, let's look closer at Sense 1 vs Sense 2.
    *   Sense 1: "concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality".
    *   Sense 2: "particular to a given individual".
    *   In the phrase "personal staff", the staff is assigned to a particular individual (the member of Congress).
    *   Looking at WordNet's typical usage: "personal staff" usually falls under the sense of "belonging to or serving a particular person".
    *   Sense 1 mentions "concerning or affecting a particular person".
    *   Sense 2 mentions "particular to a given individual".
    *   Let's re-evaluate Sense 1: "a personal favor; for your personal use". "Personal use" means use by a particular person. "Personal staff" means staff for a particular person.
    *   Sense 2 is listed as "subjective". "Subjective" usually refers to opinions (e.g., "a personal opinion").

    *   Sense 1: `concerning or affecting a particular person or his or her private life and personality`
    *   Sense 2: `particular to a given individual` (marked as "subjective")
    *   The context "personal staff" means staff employed by the individual member of Congress. This is a matter of ownership/assignment to a particular person, not subjectivity.
    *   Sense 1's examples "personal favor" and "personal use" align well with "personal staff" (staff for one's own use/benefit).

    *   Sense 1: `personal%3:00:00::`
    *   Sense 2: `personal%5:00:00:subjective:00`
    *   Sense 3: `personal%3:01:01::`
    *   Sense 4: `personal%5:00:00:physical:00`
    *   Sense 5: `personal%3:01:00::`

    The most appropriate sense is Sense 1.


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

[User]
Target lemma: decision
Target surface form: decisions
Context:
To the extent that the primary duty of personal staff involves local benefit - seeking, this indicates that political philosophy leads congressional Republicans to pay less attention to narrow constituent concerns. Second, if the key assumption is valid, Democrats should have lower attendance rates on roll-call votes than Republicans do to the extent that such votes reflect national policy making and that participating in such votes takes away from the time a legislator could otherwise devote to local benefit - seeking. 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 <t>decisions</t> 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-.

Candidate senses:
1. sense_key=decision%1:04:00:: | definition=the act of making up your mind about something | synonyms=determination, conclusion | examples=the burden of decision was his; he drew his conclusions quickly
2. sense_key=decision%1:09:00:: | definition=a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration | synonyms=determination, conclusion | examples=a decision unfavorable to the opposition; his conclusion took the evidence into account
3. sense_key=decision%1:11:02:: | definition=(boxing) a victory won on points when no knockout has occurred | examples=had little trouble in taking a unanimous decision over his opponent
4. sense_key=decision%1:11:01:: | definition=the outcome of a game or contest | examples=the team dropped three decisions in a row
5. sense_key=decision%1:07:00:: | definition=the trait of resoluteness as evidenced by firmness of character or purpose | synonyms=decisiveness | examples=a man of unusual decisiveness

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

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

reasoning_content:
*   Target lemma: `decision`
    *   Target surface form: `decisions`
    *   Context: "An examination of changes in personal staffing <t>decisions</t> in the Senate between 1986 and 1987..."
    *   Candidate senses:
        1.  `decision%1:04:00::`: the act of making up your mind about something (determination, conclusion).
        2.  `decision%1:09:00::`: a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration (determination, conclusion).
        3.  `decision%1:11:02::`: (boxing) a victory won on points.
        4.  `decision%1:11:01::`: the outcome of a game or contest.
        5.  `decision%1:07:00::`: the trait of resoluteness (decisiveness).

    *   The phrase is "personal staffing decisions".
    *   In this context, "staffing decisions" refers to the choices made by legislators about who to hire, how many people to hire, and where to place them (district offices vs. Washington offices).
    *   This is the *act* of choosing or the *result* of choosing (the specific choices made).

    *   Sense 1: "the act of making up your mind about something". This fits well. Staffing decisions are the results of the act of deciding who to hire.
    *   Sense 2: "a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration". This is more like a verdict or a formal conclusion (e.g., a court decision). While a staffing decision is a judgment, Sense 1 is generally more appropriate for the process/act of choosing in an administrative context.
    *   Sense 3: Boxing victory. (Incorrect)
    *   Sense 4: Outcome of a game. (Incorrect)
    *   Sense 5: Resoluteness/decisiveness. (Incorrect)

    *   Sense 1 (act of making up your mind) vs. Sense 2 (position/opinion/judgment).
    *   "Staffing decisions" usually refers to the specific choices made (the outcomes of the decision-making process).
    *   Looking at WordNet's typical usage:
        *   `decision%1:04:00` (act of making up your mind) is often used for the process or the specific choice made.
        *   `decision%1:09:00` (position/opinion/judgment) is often used for formal rulings or conclusions.
    *   In "staffing decisions", the focus is on the choices made regarding personnel. This aligns better with the act of deciding (Sense 1).

    *   Sense 1: "the burden of decision was his" (the act/responsibility of deciding).
    *   Sense 2: "a decision unfavorable to the opposition" (the judgment/verdict).
    *   "Staffing decisions" are not verdicts or opinions; they are choices made about resources.

    *   Sense 1 is the most fitting.