I can read some of it. I used * for two words I couldn't read. And I'm not sure about the word "containing".

> Evidence for 2-chain (or 1-chain helix)?

> 49c - general trend is as for single containing helix

> (which differs from single * chain in integral no. residues/*

> only in contribn of high order J'n to the latter)

The crossed out bit says:

> and this is indistinguishable from double helix with residues on

> each having same ζ-value, since 2nd chain has opposite signs in

> ξ & η terms (eq 1 - 2), and eqn 2 contains only [...]

She was certainly thinking about double helixes.