Ruby regex for pulling out psycinfo references

I need a regex to seperate references from a mountain of psycinfo lit searches that look like this:

http://rubular.com/r/bKMoDpAJvY (I can't post the text - something about this edit control bungs it up horribly)

I just want matches that are all the text that is between the numbering but it is doing my head in. Also an explanation would be fabulou开发者_JAVA技巧s so I can learn.

Does teststring.split(/^\d+\./) work for you?

With String#split you get an array out of your string, the string is splitted at the regex, in this case a numbers at begin of the line, followed by a dot, optional some spaces and a newline.

My testcode

teststring = DATA.read
teststring.split(/^\d+\.\s*$/).each{|m|
  puts "==========="
  puts m
}

__END__
1. 
Reframing the rocky road: From causal analysis to mindreading as the drama of disposition inference. [References]. 
Ames, Daniel R. 
Psychological Inquiry. Vol.20(1), Jan 2009, pp. 19-23.  
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 2009-04633-002. 
Comments on an article by Glenn D. Reeder (see record 2009-04633-001). My misgivings with Reeder's account are relatively minor. For one, I am not sure that the "multiple inference model" label quite captures the essential part of Reeder's argument. Although it suggests the plurality of judgments that perceivers often make, it does not seem to reflect Reeder's central point that, for intentional behaviors, perceivers typically make motive inferences and these guide trait inferences. Another stumbling point for me was the identification of five categories that accounted for "the majority of studies" on dispositional inference (attitude attribution, moral attribution, ability attribution, the silent interview paradigm, and the quiz-role paradigm). These are noteworthy paradigms, to be sure, but they hardly seem to exhaust the research on dispositional inference, which I take as a perceiver's ascription of an enduring trait to a target. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Publication Date
Jan 2009
Year of Publication
2009
E-Mail Address
Ames, Daniel R.: da358@columbia.edu
Other Publishers
Lawrence Erlbaum; US


Link to the Ovid Full Text or citation:
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=psyc6&AN=2009-04633-002

Link to the External Link Resolver:
http://diglib1.bham.ac.uk:3210/sfxlcl3?sid=OVID:psycdb&id=pmid:&id=doi:10.1080%2F10478400902744253&issn=1047-840X&isbn=&volume=20&issue=1&spage=19&pages=19-23&date=2009&title=Psychological+Inquiry&atitle=Reframing+the+rocky+road%3A+From+causal+analysis+to+mindreading+as+the+drama+of+disposition+inference.&aulast=Ames&pid=%3Cauthor%3EAmes%2C+Daniel+R%3C%2Fauthor%3E%3CAN%3E2009-04633-002%3C%2FAN%3E%3CDT%3EComment%2FReply%3C%2FDT%3E 




2. 
Everyday Solutions to the Problem of Other Minds: Which Tools Are Used When? [References]. 
Ames, Daniel R. 
Malle, Bertram F [Ed];  Hodges, Sara D [Ed]. (2005). Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others.  (pp. 158-173). xiii, 354 pp. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press;  US.  
AN: Book: 2005-09375-010. 
(from the chapter) Intuiting what the people around us think, want, and feel is essential to much of social life. Some scholars have gone so far as to declare the "problem of other minds"--whether a person can know if anyone else has thoughts and, if so, what they are--intractable. And yet countless times a day, we solve such problems with ease, if not perfectly then at least to our own satisfaction. What strategies underlie these everyday solutions? And how are these tools employed? This chapter offers 4 contingencies about when various inferential tools might be used. First, that affect qualifies behavior in the near term: perceived remorseful affect can lead to ascriptions of good intent to harm-doers in the short run, but repeated harm drives long-run ascriptions of bad intent. Second, that perceived similarity governs projection and stereotyping: perceptions of general similarity to a target typically draw a mindreader toward projection and away from stereotyping; perceived dissimilarity does the opposite. Third, that cumulative behavioral evidence supersedes extratarget strategies: projection and stereotyping will drive mindreading when behavioral evidence is ambiguous, but as apparent evidence accumulates, inductive judgments will dominate. Fourth, that negative social intention information weighs heavily in mindreading: within a mindreading strategy, cues signaling negative social intentions may dominate neutral or positive cues; between mindreading strategies, those strategies that signal negative social intentions may dominate. These contingencies have varying degrees of empirical support and would benefit from additional research and thinking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Publication Date
2005
Year of Publication
2005


Link to the Ovid Full Text or citation:
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=psyc5&AN=2005-09375-010

Link to the External Link Resolver:
http://diglib1.bham.ac.uk:3210/sfxlcl3?sid=OVID:psycdb&id=pmid:&id=doi:&issn=&isbn=1-59385-187-1&volume=&issue=&spage=158&pages=158-173&date=2005&title=Other+minds%3A+How+humans+bridge+the+divide+between+self+and+others.&atitle=Everyday+Solutions+to+the+Problem+of+Other+Minds%3A+Which+Tools+Are+Used+When%3F&aulast=Ames&pid=%3Cauthor%3EAmes%2C+Daniel+R%3C%2Fauthor%3E%3CAN%3E2005-09375-010%3C%2FAN%3E%3CDT%3EChapter%3C%2FDT%3E 

results in: ===========

===========

Reframing the rocky road: From causal analysis to mindreading as the drama of disposition inference. [References]. 
Ames, Daniel R. 
Psychological Inquiry. Vol.20(1), Jan 2009, pp. 19-23.  
AN: Peer Reviewed Journal: 2009-04633-002. 
Comments on an article by Glenn D. Reeder (see record 2009-04633-001). My misgivings with Reeder's account are relatively minor. For one, I am not sure that the "multiple inference model" label quite captures the essential part of Reeder's argument. Although it suggests the plurality of judgments that perceivers often make, it does not seem to reflect Reeder's central point that, for intentional behaviors, perceivers typically make motive inferences and these guide trait inferences. Another stumbling point for me was the identification of five categories that accounted for "the majority of studies" on dispositional inference (attitude attribution, moral attribution, ability attribution, the silent interview paradigm, and the quiz-role paradigm). These are noteworthy paradigms, to be sure, but they hardly seem to exhaust the research on dispositional inference, which I take as a perceiver's ascription of an enduring trait to a target. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Publication Date
Jan 2009
Year of Publication
2009
E-Mail Address
Ames, Daniel R.: da358@columbia.edu
Other Publishers
Lawrence Erlbaum; US


Link to the Ovid Full Text or citation:
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=psyc6&AN=2009-04633-002

Link to the External Link Resolver:
http://diglib1.bham.ac.uk:3210/sfxlcl3?sid=OVID:psycdb&id=pmid:&id=doi:10.1080%2F10478400902744253&issn=1047-840X&isbn=&volume=20&issue=1&spage=19&pages=19-23&date=2009&title=Psychological+Inquiry&atitle=Reframing+the+rocky+road%3A+From+causal+analysis+to+mindreading+as+the+drama+of+disposition+inference.&aulast=Ames&pid=%3Cauthor%3EAmes%2C+Daniel+R%3C%2Fauthor%3E%3CAN%3E2009-04633-002%3C%2FAN%3E%3CDT%3EComment%2FReply%3C%2FDT%3E 




===========

Everyday Solutions to the Problem of Other Minds: Which Tools Are Used When? [References]. 
Ames, Daniel R. 
Malle, Bertram F [Ed];  Hodges, Sara D [Ed]. (2005). Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others.  (pp. 158-173). xiii, 354 pp. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press;  US.  
AN: Book: 2005-09375-010. 
(from the chapter) Intuiting what the people around us think, want, and feel is essential to much of social life. Some scholars have gone so far as to declare the "problem of other minds"--whether a person can know if anyone else has thoughts and, if so, what they are--intractable. And yet countless times a day, we solve such problems with ease, if not perfectly then at least to our own satisfaction. What strategies underlie these everyday solutions? And how are these tools employed? This chapter offers 4 contingencies about when various inferential tools might be used. First, that affect qualifies behavior in the near term: perceived remorseful affect can lead to ascriptions of good intent to harm-doers in the short run, but repeated harm drives long-run ascriptions of bad intent. Second, that perceived similarity governs projection and stereotyping: perceptions of general similarity to a target typically draw a mindreader toward projection and away from stereotyping; perceived dissimilarity does the opposite. Third, that cumulative behavioral evidence supersedes extratarget strategies: projection and stereotyping will drive mindreading when behavioral evidence is ambiguous, but as apparent evidence accumulates, inductive judgments will dominate. Fourth, that negative social intention information weighs heavily in mindreading: within a mindreading strategy, cues signaling negative social intentions may dominate neutral or positive cues; between mindreading strategies, those strategies that signal negative social intentions may dominate. These contingencies have varying degrees of empirical support and would benefit from additional research and thinking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Publication Date
2005
Year of Publication
2005


Link to the Ovid Full Text or citation:
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=psyc5&AN=2005-09375-010

Link to the External Link Resolver:
http://diglib1.bham.ac.uk:3210/sfxlcl3?sid=OVID:psycdb&id=pmid:&id=doi:&issn=&isbn=1-59385-187-1&volume=&issue=&spage=158&pages=158-173&date=2005&title=Other+minds%3A+How+humans+bridge+the+divide+between+self+and+others.&atitle=Everyday+Solutions+to+the+Problem+of+Other+Minds%3A+Which+Tools+Are+Used+When%3F&aulast=Ames&pid=%3Cauthor%3EAmes%2C+Daniel+R%3C%2Fauthor%3E%3CAN%3E2005-09375-010%3C%2FAN%3E%3CDT%3EChapter%3C%2FDT%3E 

The first empty "" is obsolete, you may delete it.

I found another solution with String#scan:

(teststring + "99.\n").scan(/^\d+\.\s*\n(.*?)(?=^\d+\.\s*\n)/m).each{|m|
  puts "==========="
  puts m
}

Explanation:

• ^\d+\.\s*\n Look for numbers with dot at line start until line end. Ignore trailing spaces
• (.*?) take everything, but not greedy (use shortest hit)
• (?=^\d+\.\s*\n) Check for next entry, but don't consume it
• m use multiline code
• (teststring + "99.\n") This solution will loose the last entry. So we add a 'endtag'