Hi,

I've replaced the short and full results tables for abstracts
because the actual peer length was incorrect and therefore the
length-adjusted coverage. Thanks to Marie-Francine Moens for
making me aware of this problem. 

The strange situation with respect to length-adjusted coverage
for a summary that is empty still occurs. Although coverage is
nil you win points for the ultimate in brevity! and come out
with a score of .333 :-) 

I also removed a half a dozen lines or so which involved a model 
compared to itself - the leftover debris of an early error in the 
setup. Since the spreadsheet version of the table of course also
contained the error I removed it as well.

Sorry for the inconvenience
Paul