Results 11 - 20
of
4,218
Table 1. Overall performance of Otter, leanCoP, and lolliCoP
2001
"... In PAGE 11: ...1 (with MACE 1.4) [8, 10] are shown in Table1 . Due to the time needed to run these systems on the entire library, the results are those provided by their respective authors (in the case of leanCoP they come from a manuscript in preparation).... ..."
Cited by 3
Table 1. Overall performance of Otter, leanCoP, and lolliCoP
2001
"... In PAGE 11: ...1 (with MACE 1.4) [8, 10] are shown in Table1 . Due to the time needed to run these systems on the entire library, the results are those provided by their respective authors (in the case of leanCoP they come from a manuscript in preparation).... ..."
Cited by 3
Table 10: Familiarity with Manuscripts Department Collections by Academic Status
2004
"... In PAGE 28: ...0% of the population of each separate status group. See Table10 below for a complete breakdown of familiarity by academic status. Table 10: Familiarity with Manuscripts Department Collections by Academic Status ... ..."
Table 9: Familiarity with Manuscript Department Collections by Academic Department Affiliation
2004
Table 4 Increasingly automated approaches are being adopted to marking formatting during document preparation. An example of these are generalized markup schemes in which the document structure and attributes are described and subsequently associated with processing instructions. These are likely to make much of the traditional style editing task obsolete. Nevertheless the conventional techniques still apply in syntactic and substantive editing or in documents where limited and highly localised style changes are to be made to a pre-existing text.
"... In PAGE 9: ... A rule of thumb is that a maximum of 10-15% of the document may be changed after the initial proof version, any changes above this amount will probably result in considerable additional cost. Some specialist marks to denote common printers errors such as marks from visible paper edges are used, see Table4 : Q. Generally the printer will find some problems with the manuscript and will mark these on the proofs returned to author and copy-editor using, for example, mark R.... ..."
Table 4 Increasingly automated approaches are being adopted to marking formatting during document preparation. An example of these are generalized markup schemes in which the document structure and attributes are described and subsequently associated with processing instructions. These are likely to make much of the traditional style editing task obsolete. Nevertheless the conventional techniques still apply in syntactic and substantive editing or in documents where limited and highly localised style changes are to be made to a pre-existing text.
"... In PAGE 9: ... A rule of thumb is that a maximum of 10-15% of the document may be changed after the initial proof version, any changes above this amount will probably result in considerable additional cost. Some specialist marks to denote common printers errors such as marks from visible paper edges are used, see Table4 : Q. Generally the printer will find some problems with the manuscript and will mark these on the proofs returned to author and copy-editor using, for example, mark R.... ..."
Table 5. Authority score ranking for frequently cited authors. Author name Authority score Author name Authority score
"... In PAGE 9: ... Leape at the Harvard School of Public Health, Mor Peleg at Stanford University, and Suzanne Bakken at Columbia University. Table5 ranks the authors in the combined list by their citation-based Authority scores. James Cimino is again among the five highest scoring in this table, along with Mark A.... ..."
Results 11 - 20
of
4,218