some information incorrectly presented as tables

[cognitivetech]

First, let me say what a great service you have! really impressive. As an early tester I'm just doing my duty to help refine the product

Developing_the_Home-based_Early_Intervention_Program_A_Case_Study.pdf

You can see here an example where its just regular paragraph but added as a table

|Family Centered Approach|is another important approach in the developmental early intervention program. In early intervention services, studying with every family individually and planning intervention programs considering family’s properties and opinions effect results positively. Primary principle of the family centered approach is composed of focusing family’s strengths, respect family’s differences and values, letting family to decide and support their authority, communicating with the family in an open and cooperative way and having a flexible approach on supplying services (Bailey, Raspa & Fox, 2012). In the current study, all of these properties are considered during the applications.|
|---|---|
|According to results and previous studies|providing the required developmental support at correct time and directing families properly is very important in early intervention studies. Brorson (2005) stated that studies that evaluated the effectiveness of early intervention mention a single point: Early intervention has a positive effect on infants and young children. When all these early intervention studies are considered, applications in this study, serves to early intervention applications/programs for 0-3 age group. In our country, there is limited number of studies especially for 0-3 age group. A study by Gul & Diken (2009) also supports this idea. They investigated postgraduate studies in Turkey and did not find any study about teaching ability to 0-3 age group children with developmental delay or disability.|
|This study is thought to be important for early intervention studies for 0-3 age group children|with/with risk of developmental delay or developmental disability. According to results of the current study, it can be suggested to design a new “Early Intervention” regulation for 0-3 age group children and their families to guarantee their rights and opportunities; to develop a new systematical early intervention program incorporated with Ministry of Health to identify and redirect children with developmental delay or disability; to plan early intervention programs for 0-3 age group children according to natural environments, support them primarily in home environment or social environments and plan their transition to required institute based programs after 3 years old; to consider, evaluate and reorganize home environment according to developmental requirements when studying with children with developmental delay or disability; to accept individualized family education applications as a part of the early intervention program, plan it to contribute family into developmental support practices/programs and consider it as a family centered approach; to study early intervention applications in cooperation with related field specialists and according to transdisciplinary approach. More studies about early intervention programs and model suggestions for 0-3 age group children with developmental disability must be done in Turkey. Families must be consulted how to support their children’s development in their natural environment, whether child has institute-based or home-based support. Appropriate home based support programs must be prepared according to family’s individual properties.|

Here is the section from the pdf itsel: f

[cognitivetech]

here's another example of text being incorrectly rendered as table in markdown

Evaluation_of_the_short_formof"Experience_in_Close_Relationships"__Revised_GermanVersion"ECR-RD12")_-_A_tool_to_measure_adult_attachment_in_primary_care.pdf

|ECR-RD 12|The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) questionnaire was developed to assess individual differences with respect to attachment-related anxiety (i.e., the extent to which people are insecure vs. secure regarding the availability of and responsiveness to the people they are romantically involved with) and attachment-related avoidance (i.e., the extent to which people feel uncomfortable being close to others vs. secure in depending on others). We used 12 items to be rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participants were instructed to “take a moment to think about your overall experiences in romantic/love relationships, including both your previous and current relationship experiences”. Brennan et al. reported high internal consistency values with alpha coefficients of 0.91 for the dimension anxiety and 0.94 based on avoidance within a student population in the 36 item version. These results were confirmed in other studies.|
|---|---|
|GSE|Different attachment tools do not necessarily correlate highly with each other because they examine different aspects of attachment. But all have similar external criteria with which they correlate positively or negatively. General self-efficacy is positively correlated with secure attachment in a stable manner. The ECR-RD12 does not explicitly measure secure attachment, but rather anxiety and avoidance. Low levels of anxiety and avoidance represented secure attachment; therefore, the correlation must be negative. Convergent validity is often used as a criterion in behavioral sciences; it refers to the degree to which two measures of constructs that theoretically should be related, statistically are related. Using Pearson’s product moment correlations, we measured the correlation of similar dimensions in these instruments that we expected to be negatively related to the other constructs. In order to determine convergent validity, we used the General Self-Efficacy questionnaire (GSE). The GSE is an internationally standardized one-dimensional questionnaire that measures general perceptions of self-efficacy. The construct of Perceived Self Efficacy reflects an optimistic belief in oneself, i.e. that one can perform difficult tasks or cope with adversity in various domains of human functioning. It can be regarded as a factor that has a positive influence on the resilience. The GSE consists of 10 items to be rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4: (1) not at all true, (2) hardly true, (3) moderately true, and (4) exactly true. Each item measures successful coping and implies internally stable attribution of success. Sample surveys were carried out in 23 nations, Cronbach’s alphas for the GSE ranged from .76 to .90. Most prominent health behavior theories include self-efficacy, which is a proximal and direct predictor of intention and of behavior. According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory, both an individual’s perception of his or her ability to perform an action (self-efficacy) as well as his or her expectations that the action will have desirable results (outcome efficacy) are important mediators of performance. Therefore, self-efficacy is clinically relevant as a critical component of behavior changes. Socio-demographic data (regarding age, gender, level of education and partnership) as well as how long a patient had been consulting the GP were taken into account. Assessment of the current health status and current life satisfaction was based on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 10.|

[cognitivetech]

ok, last time, but I want to be sure you have a few examples to work with Homebased_developmental_screen.pdf

|1. Denver Developmental Screening Test-II (DDST-II)|an instrument used for screening and surveillance of the development of young children aged 1 month to 6 years. This instrument divides development into the categories of personal social skills, fine motor skills, language, and gross motor skills. Interrater reliability for this test and between examiners in this study is 92.4% to 98.2% (Frankenburg & Dodds, 1992). Validity is shown between the DDST-II, the Stanford Binet, and the Bayley quotients (Bayley, 1993) with co-positivity 0.23 and co-negativity 0.92 in all quotients of 70 and above. Scoring used criteria recommended by the developers of the tool. An intersecting age line appropriate for the child's age was drawn, and each item within this line was scored as recommended. Each child received a score of pass or fail in each domain. A caution was scored when the child failed or refused an item for their age line, which fell between the 75th and 90th percentile. For purposes of analysis, two or more suspect (caution) scores were considered a failure. Administration time is 15-20 minutes.|
|---|---|
|2. Early Language Milestone Scale-2 (ELM-2)|a language assessment tool dividing language into four domains: auditory expressive, auditory receptive, visual language, and intelligibility. Both a pass-fail scoring system (screening) and a point scoring system (testing) are available for analysis. A vertical line was drawn through the items of the child's chronologic or adjusted age, and items were scored as a pass or fail. This study applied the point scoring method that uses raw scores in each of the 3 component divisions. These scores are converted to percentiles and standard scores with an age equivalent for each division. The scoring system provides finer gradations than pass/fail. Interobserver correlation coefficients range from .93 to .99 and test-retest correlation coefficients range from .77 to .94 (Coplan, 1993). Validity has been established by Coplan with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale and a subset of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. The test can be administered in 5 to 10 minutes.|
|3. Infant Neurological International Battery (INFANIB)|an instrument to assess the neurological integrity of infants to the age of 18 months. It uses the chronologic or adjusted age for the infant. The 20-item instrument has five factors: spasticity, vestibular function, head and trunk, French angles, and legs. Cut points are set that separate infants by age into three categories: normal, transiently abnormal, and abnormal neurologic development. Total score reliabilities for all subjects equals .91. The interrater reliability for total scores on the INFANIB was r = .97 (Ellison, Horn, & Browning, 1985). This assessment can be completed in 5 minutes, while scoring takes approximately 10 minutes (Ellison et al., 1985).|
|4. Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME)|an observational tool designed to determine the frequency of contacts between care givers and children, the type of environment children live in, the emotional climate in which they live, the provision for sensory experiences, the identification of family strengths and weaknesses, and the identification of developmental risks before a child is 3 years of age. The HOME for infants and toddlers measures 45 items in six major categories: responsivity, acceptance, organization, play materials, involvement, and variety. Scoring results in both subscale scores and total scores can fall into the lowest middle ([is less than] 50%), the middle half (50-75%), or the upper fourth ([is greater than] 75%). Test-retest reliability of the total scale is r = 0.84 (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984). Criterion related validity was established by correlating mental test scores at the following ages: 6 months, r = .5; 12 months, r = .57; and 24 months, r = .7 (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984). The CNS completed the HOME inventory within 30 minutes after leaving the foster home.|

[hexapode]

We updated LlamaParse to reduce false positive on table detection. This now work as expected