chore(results): table 3 formatting

Author: TomMonks

notebooks/04_results/01_CCU/00_model_comparison.ipynb

@@ -191,23 +191,36 @@
     "\n",
     "A more substantial difference is that the stage 2 code is arguably easier to understand for a new user than stage 1 code.  For example, the LLM generated an `Experiment` class where each parameter used in a statistical distribution was implemented as a named variable. For example, the mean inter-arrival times all had a clear variable that could be set. Where-as in stage one code the LLM generated an `Experiment` class where inter-arrival means were set via a list of unnamed parameter values. This increased clarify resulted in more lines of code in stage 2 than stage 1; although we do not consider this a good or bad outcome.  A similar difference in clarity can be seen in the code to convert the mean and standard deviation of a log normal into scale and shape parameters (suitable for the `numpy` lognormal functions).  In stage 2 the logic was (optimally) implemented in a reusable function.  In stage one the conversion logic is coded directly into each process and harder to follow and test.  The difference in the design of the python classes representing an experiment and CCU model logic can be seen in the number of class attributes and methods in {numref}`ccu_component_comparison`.\n",
     "\n",
-    "```{list-table} Description of model code components Stage 1 versus Stage 2. (stage 2 inside of brackets)\n",
-    ":header-rows: 1\n",
-    ":name: ccu_component_comparison\n",
+    "```{list-table} Description of model code components Stage 1 versus Stage 2.\n",
+    ":header-rows: 2\n",
+    ":name: tab:ccu_code\n",
     "\n",
-    "* - Component\n",
-    "  - Attributes (stage 2)\n",
-    "  - Methods/Functions (stage 2)\n",
-    "* - **Experiment class**\n",
-    "  - 13 (27)\n",
-    "  - 3 (2)\n",
-    "* - **CCU model logic class**\n",
-    "  - 4 (9)\n",
-    "  - 10 (12)\n",
-    "* - **Functions**\n",
+    "* - **Component**\n",
+    "  - **Number of Attributes**\n",
+    "  - \n",
+    "  - **Number of Methods/Functions**\n",
+    "  - \n",
+    "* - \n",
+    "  - **Stage 1**\n",
+    "  - **Stage 2**\n",
+    "  - **Stage 1**\n",
+    "  - **Stage 2**\n",
+    "* - `Experiment` class\n",
+    "  - 13\n",
+    "  - 27\n",
+    "  - 3\n",
+    "  - 2\n",
+    "* - `CCU model logic` class\n",
+    "  - 4\n",
+    "  - 9\n",
+    "  - 10\n",
+    "  - 12\n",
+    "* - Functions\n",
     "  - N/A\n",
-    "  - 6 (6)\n",
-    "```\n"
+    "  - N/A\n",
+    "  - 6\n",
+    "  - 6\n",
+    "```"
    ]
   },
   {

notebooks/04_results/02_stroke/00_model_comparison.ipynb

@@ -5,9 +5,7 @@
    "id": "73bdb0ff-3c46-4975-bc88-37fbf72a6e6a",
    "metadata": {},
    "source": [
-    "# Stroke+Rehab models\n",
-    "\n",
-    "> This is a work in progress."
+    "# Stroke+Rehab models"
    ]
   },
   {