I apologize if the title doesn't properly describe the issue or if solutions have already been posted, I wasn't sure what to call this.
I have a list of scientific articles as references. The format is:
Mazourek, M., Pujar, A., Borovsky, Y., Paran, I., Mueller, L., Jahn, M. M. (2009). A dynamic interface for capsaicinoid systems biology. Plant Physiology, 150(4), 1806-1821.
I get these from Google Scholar directly (APA format) and want to maintain this format. Can I use this as a source in Word without having to fill out the entire form and write one-by-one every author and all the fields about journal, year, etc.? I want to reference this using its number in a numbered list, and for word to automatically update the numbers of in-text citations if I add a new reference to the start of the list, for example. Thanks.
Related
I am trying to make a webpage using github. But I got stuck when trying to make a hanging indent
I want to make a reference list using apa format. (In Normal Text, Not in Code)
A., B., & C., D. (2020, August 1). Name of the paper. Name of the paper Name of the paper
Name of the paper Name of the paper. Journal of ABC. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/1.1.2.2.2./deew/37.4.433
I have been looking around, but I could not find a way to do this.
Finally, this is what I found
A., B., & C., D. (2020, August 1). Name of the paper. Name of the paper Name of the paper Name of the paper <br> Name of the paper. Journal of ABC. Retrieved from https://doi.org/1.1.2.2.2./deew/37.4.433
Which produce the following
A., B., & C., D. (2020, August 1). Name of the paper. Name of the paper Name of the paper Name of the paper Name of the paper. Journal of ABC. Retrieved from https://doi.org/1.1.2.2.2./deew/37.4.433
But I think this is not a very efficient way to do. I wonder if you have any better ideas? Thanks!
Please let me know if you need more information. I am still trying to learn github.
Sorry about the late response but this is for others with the same problem
The hanging indent that you want is somewhat the handling that you see after a list item and in the next line adding spaces before the text
1. List item itself
(space)(space)Hanging indent that is handled to make nice multiline list items
2. Next list item
Is is usually not possible in markdown itself. In HTML+CSS you can do this:
<p style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;">(a) in relation to an exempt payment service provider mentioned in subsection (1)(a), means any of the following payment services:</p>
But is is not always that you can use the CSS in Markdown supported HTML.
Some of the solutions have been explored [here] [https://serial-comma.com/blog/posts/2020-09-13-hanging-paragraphs-in-markdown.html]
I am coding a readme for a repo in github, and I want to add a reference to a paper. What is the most adequate way to code in the citation? e.g. As a blockquote, as code, as simple text, etc?
Suggestions?
I agree with Horizon_Net that it depends on personal preference.
I like to have something which looks similar to LaTeX.
An example is provided below.
Note that it demonstrates a numeric citation style.
Alphabetic or reading style are possible too.
For numeric citation style, higher numbers should appear later in the text, and this can make satisfying numeric citation style cumbersome.
To avoid this problem, I typically use an alphabetic citation style.
"...the **go to** statement should be abolished..." [[1]](#1).
## References
<a id="1">[1]</a>
Dijkstra, E. W. (1968).
Go to statement considered harmful.
Communications of the ACM, 11(3), 147-148.
"...the go to statement should be abolished..." [1].
References
[1]
Dijkstra, E. W. (1968).
Go to statement considered harmful.
Communications of the ACM, 11(3), 147-148.
On GitHub flavored Markdown and most other Markdown flavors, you can actually click on [1] to jump to the reference.
Apologies for taking Dijkstra his sentence out of context.
The full sentence would make this example more difficult to read.
EDIT:
If the references all have a stable link, it is also possible to use those:
The field of natural language processing (NLP) has become mostly dominated by deep learning approaches
(Young et al., [2018](https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2018.2840738)).
Some are based on transformer neural networks
(e.g., Devlin et al, [2018](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805)).
The field of natural language processing (NLP) has become mostly dominated by deep learning approaches
(Young et al., 2018).
Some are based on transformer neural networks
(e.g., Devlin et al, 2018).
From what I know, there is no built-in mechanism for this. This leads to more subjective opinions, depending on personal preference. I personally like to have a separate section called references. An example would look like the following
References
some reference
another reference
Update
Another way would be to use simple HTML embedded in your Markdown.
The alternative (to pure markdown) is to use the new GitHub integration from Aug. 2021:
Enhanced support for citations on GitHub
GitHub now has built-in support for CITATION.cff files.
This new feature enables academics and researchers to let people know how to correctly cite their work, especially in academic publications/materials.
Originally proposed by the research software engineering community, CITATION.cff files are plain text files with human- and machine-readable citation information.
When we detect a CITATION.cff file in a repository, we use this information to create convenient APA or BibTeX style citation links that can be referenced by others.
How this works
Under the hood, we’re using the ruby-cff RubyGem to parse the contents of the CITATION.cff file and build a citation string that is then shown in GitHub when someone browses a repository with one of those files1.
Now, that is helping others making your Github paper easily citable.
But, as documented, to "add a reference to a paper":
Citing something other than software
If you would prefer the GitHub citation information to link to another resource such as a research article, then you can use the preferred-citation override in CFF with the following types.
Resource
Type
Research article
article
Conference paper
conference-paper
Book
book
Extract
preferred-citation:
type: article
authors:
- family-names: "Lisa"
given-names: "Mona"
orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000"
I've searched around the web, and haven't found any procedure or tool that can distinguish those .docx files that are encoded as Strict ECMA-376 and those that are not. (same drill for .xlsx files) Most discussions center on which formats are supported by a given app, e.g. LibreOffice, but not how to distinguish files.
Dovetail question: 2. Does anyone know of any documentation that lays out the differences in the four editions of ECMA-376? http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm
On that page, you'll see first edition, second edition, third edition, fourth edition. First edition was 2006, and fourth edition is Dec 2012. None of the documentation appears to describe the revisions from one edition to the next, no "What's New in this edition" or anything like that. (In some cases they note structural changes, like a topic that was housed in Part 1 last time is now in Part 2, etc.)
Wikipedia describes the structural contents of the first two editions...: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Versions
...but has nothing to say about third or fourth editions, or substantive changes between the first two. Can anyone point me to documentation that lays out the iterative changes?
(ECMA-376 is normally mirrored by ISO 29500. ISO might document revisions, but their pubs are paywalled, and not just any paywall, but a 352 Swiss Franc paywall, which at today's exchange rates comes to $394.20...)
There are a couple of things to your questions:
Difference between Strict and Transitional
The main difference between Strict documents and Transitional documents is namespaces. The namespaces in Strict all contain #purl.org", as far as I remember, whereas namespaces in Transitional contain the word "microsoft". See the exact strings in Part 1 of OpenXml Standard for Strict and Part 4 for Transitional.
I do not think there is such a document available - and neither for the ISO-version.
And finally - you say that ECMA is mirrored by ISO. It is actually the other way around. Whenever ISO publishes a new version of the standard, an (almost) exact copy is published by ECMA (with their letter-head etc) afterwards.
And finally, finally, ISO OpenXml standard is free of charge. You can find the latest edition at http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html (search for "29500" on the page).
Should you wish to look a bit into what we do in the ISO working group, this is a good start: http://jtc1sc34.org/wg4 .
Jesper Lund Stocholm
Appointed Expert to ISO SC34 committee working with OpenXml.
According to section 17.2.3 of Ecma Office Open XML Part 1, the document element of the main document story will have an attribute "conformance" that specifies the conformance class. This can either be strict, or transitional. If the attribute is omitted, the default value is transitional.
Annex M of Ecma Office Open XML Part 1 (page 5028) documents the differences between ECMA-376:2012 and ECMA-376:2006.
I want to use the capture module of org-mode to create a data base of new words that I want to learn, and then use the drill module to learn them (flash cards style).
In my org-capture-templates I added the following:
("v" "Vocabulary" entry
(file+headline (concat org-directory "/vocab.org")
"Vocabulary")
"* Word :drill:\n%^ \n** Answer \n%^")
This is a rather naive template which I borrowed from here. It works fine but it is too limited. Unfortunately I'm rather new to elisp and I don't know how to improve it.
I think the above template has to be improved in the following there aspects:
Headline Currently the first input string is the (new) word and the headline is fixed. How can the headline be the same (input) word? I think that the following result is desirable:
* Vocabulary
** Foo :drill:
Foo
*** Answer
What is foo
Actually an even better way would be to have 3 input strings.
The new word (for example foo) which will be the headline.
If the second is empty, then it gets the same string as (1). Otherwise, concatenates the string to the one from (1). E.g. having as second input bar would yield foo bar. This will be the content of the entry.
The word's definition which should come in the answer sub-headline.
Duplications (see again this) If at some later point I try to capture foo again, I would like to know it, and be directed to edit the already existing entry - skipping all the inputs.
Sorting After capturing I think it would be nice to sort the list of words. This should not be too hard given that the headline of each entry is the word itself. In this case one can probably use the org-sort-entries function.
I know this is a rather big questions but I also think that if it can be solved here it will be of great use to many users.
Edits:
Using #juan_g suggestions, I improved my template and now it is:
("v" "Vocabulary" entry
(file+headline (concat org-directory "/vocab.org")
"Vocabulary")
"* %^{The word} :drill:\n %t\n %^{Extended word (may be empty)} \n** Answer \n%^{The definition}")
I didn't manage to set the default value of the second input to be the 1st one. I tried something like %^{Extended word (may be empty)|%\1} but it returns ^A which is not helpful.
In any case, this improved version seems to be already usable.
About the input question, in Org Mode Manual: 9.1.3.2 Template expansion, there is the %\1 special escape code:
%\n Insert the text entered at the nth %^{prompt}, where n a number, starting from 1.
The duplications question probably would need some Emacs Lisp coding.
For sorting, see C-c ^ (org-sort).
BTW, org-drill seems indeed a really interesting package, based on SuperMemo's spaced repetition algorithms.
You need an extra "\", therefore %\\1 works as expected.
Is there any diff tool for Lotus Notes which allows to compare scripts, design elements and documents?
I see this is an old question, and most of the other answers are a little outdated now, so I thought I would add some hopefully valuable information for those who should stumble upon this now.
In Domino Designer, open either the Navigator or Package Explorer (Window menu -> Show Eclipse Views). Here you can expand databases/templates to see the design elements they contain. Select two or three elements (CTRL-click). They can be in different databases or the same database. Right click on one of the elements and select Compare with -> Each other.
You can also compare two databases element by element by selecting two databases/templates, right-clicking and selecting Compare with -> Each other. You will then get the differences between the two databases listed. You will be able to see which elements differ between the two databases, and which elements exist in one database but not the other. By double-clicking on a differing element, you will open a diff tool which lets you see differences line by line, and you can easily copy changes from left to right or right to left.
There is a tool from TeamStudio called Delta: http://www.teamstudio.com/products/delta.html
If all else fails (and by "all else" I mean the often ridiculous corporate procurement system) you can always do a an export to DXL (or a Design Synopsis for code alone) and use any decent text editor with a diff function. It's not TeamStudio Delta, but it will get you where you want to go.
There is a free tool from OpenNTF which does document comparisons:
http://www.openntf.org/Projects/pmt.nsf/ProjectLookup/Compare%20Notes%20Documents
Ytria also has a product which, among other things, will compare data documents (I don't believe it compares design elements).
http://www.ytria.com/website.nsf/WebPageRequest/Solutions_scanEZ_specen
And, I believe Martin Scott (http://www.martinscott.com) has a similar product which compares documents.
DDE (Domino Designer on Eclipse) let's you compare design elements natively. Same way as the search. It's pretty efficient (faster than a DXL exportation) and it's free.
I had a discussion on my blog a little while back about this:
http://rosshawkins.net/archive/2009/12/24/notesdomino-refactoringanalysis-tools.aspx
However what I've ended up doing in the past is exporting the design to the filesystem and using standard text tools (WinMerge and SublimeText for me personally) to do what I need.
Being able to do the raw dump is something that was added with the Eclipse based designer, and isn't overly obvious, but you can read more about it here:
rosshawkins.net/archive/2010/01/20/searching-the-contents-of-notesdomino-design-elements.aspx
(link mangled as my rep is too low to post 2 links in one post yet!)
Teamstudio Delta is really nice. However it might kill you with too many details. As Ross pointed out the Domino Designer 8.5 can use the Diff tool inherited from Eclipse. You also could head over to http://www.openntf.org and look for the DXLMagic project. It can generate a report that shows differences (including code) between 2 databases (typically a template and a variation of it). It is not as complete as Delta, but shows the essentials. It's free and source is included (Disclaimer: I wrote it).
This is what I do. I run a design synopsis of the database using the Notes Designer. Dump the file to a text file. You can actually split the synopsis out to different objects like Agents, Forms, Views, etc. Then you can run UNIX/Linux/Mac Unix commands to compare the elements. By doing this operation you find out what code is active, and have a complete documented source code. You do a lot of csplit and a few sed commands.
Version 12.0.1 has such a tool as part of the server. Look for comparedbs.ntf and designsynopsis.ntf on the Domino server.