Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 109 references

Constraining $\nu$-Process Production of Fluorine through Cosmic Ray Nucleosynthesis

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The supernova neutrino process made fluorine early, but AGB stars made most of today's fluorine.

desk verdict A useful GCE paper that makes the right call on AGB-dominated solar fluorine, but the 11B/10B-based ν-process normalization is shakier than the paper admits, which mainly weakens the low-metallicity F predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01723 v1 pith:73I6RXAA submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.CO

Keith A. Olive , Elisabeth Vangioni This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.CO
keywords fluorinenucleosynthesisneutrinoprocessGalacticchemicalevolutioncosmic-rayLiBeBisotopesAGBstarsboronisotoperatiolow-metallicityabundances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Fluorine is the rarest nucleus between carbon and scandium, and its origin has been debated among massive stars, AGB stars, and neutrino spallation in supernovae. This paper couples a one-zone Galactic chemical evolution model to cosmic-ray nucleosynthesis of Li, Be, and B, then calibrates the uncertain supernova neutrino process against the observed $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B ratio. With that single calibration, the B/Be ratio is a prediction rather than an input, and the computed fluorine evolution matches the observed abundances. The paper's central result is a temporal division of labor: the $\nu$-process dominates fluorine at low metallicity, while AGB stars supply essentially all of the present-day fluorine abundance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a one-parameter interpolation between two published $\nu$-process yield sets, $Y = \alpha Y_{\rm low} + (1-\alpha) Y_{\rm high}$, where low and high refer to different assumed neutrino temperatures. The same $\alpha$ multiplies the $^7$Li, $^{11}$B, and $^{19}$F yields. Setting $\alpha = 0.9$ makes the model reproduce the observed $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B = 4 at solar metallicity; since the same dial scales the fluorine yield, the fluorine evolution is determined rather than fitted.

What would settle it

A supernova yield calculation in which the ratio of $^{19}$F to $^{11}$B production changes substantially between the low- and high-temperature yield sets would break the single-parameter interpolation. Alternatively, fluorine measurements in several ultra-metal-poor stars with [Fe/H] below about $-2.5$ would test the predicted low-metallicity dominance of the $\nu$-process: a flat or declining [F/Fe] trend there would contradict the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the supernova $\nu$-process (neutrino spallation on C, N, O, and Ne shell material) and AGB nucleosynthesis divide fluorine production by epoch rather than competing for the same stars. Using a one-zone chemical evolution model with standard Galactic cosmic-ray nucleosynthesis and a low-energy cosmic-ray component, the authors include three fluorine sources, massive stars, AGB stars, and the $\nu$-process, and calibrate the $\nu$-process by requiring the present-day $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B ratio to equal the observed value of 4. This fixes the interpolation parameter $\alpha = 0.9$ between the low- and high-energy neutrino yield sets, which then also fixes the $^7$Li and $^{19}$F yields. The resulting B/Be evolution is fully predicted, and the [F/H] evolution fits the data across metallicities. The central conclusion is that the $\nu$-process dominates fluorine at [Fe/H] below roughly $-1.5$ to $-2.2$, whereas the present-day fluorine abundance is almost entirely a product of AGB stars.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the assumption that fluorine and boron respond to supernova neutrino temperature in the same way, so a single dial set by the boron isotope ratio also fixes the fluorine yield; if fluorine's response differs, the fluorine prediction could be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At metallicities below about [Fe/H] = $-1.5$ to $-2.2$, fluorine tracks the supernova rate, so future low-metallicity fluorine measurements directly test the $\nu$-process normalization.
  • The present-day fluorine abundance is essentially an AGB output, so improvements in intermediate-mass-star yields matter more than further neutrino-temperature refinements for matching solar fluorine.
  • Because B/Be is predicted once $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B is fitted, a robust low-metallicity measurement of B/Be provides an independent check of the same calibration.
  • Solar-metallicity fluorine data cannot distinguish the high from the low neutrino-temperature yield choices; the discriminating power lies only at low metallicity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the single-$\alpha$ transfer is valid, the same calibration strategy could be applied to other $\nu$-process isotopes, turning the boron isotope ratio into a general dial for neutrino-created nuclei.
  • A targeted yield calculation comparing $^{19}$F and $^{11}$B production across a range of neutrino temperatures would quantify how much error the linear interpolation hides; the paper does not provide this calculation.
  • If future fluorine observations at [Fe/H] below about $-2.2$ fail to show the predicted $\nu$-process dominance, the boron-calibrated $\alpha$ would need to be lowered, which would then require an additional $^{11}$B source to keep $^{11}$B/$^{10}$B at 4.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines a one-zone closed-box Galactic chemical evolution model with a standard GCRN treatment to follow Li, Be, B, and F self-consistently. It uses AGB yields, massive-star yields, and the low- and high-neutrino-temperature ν-process yields of Sieverding et al. (2018), interpolating between the two sets with a single parameter α (Eq. 3). The GCR flux is normalized to the present Be abundance, the LEC component to the low-metallicity Be slope, and α = 0.9 is fixed by requiring 11B/10B = 4 today. The resulting model reproduces the evolution of Be, B, B/Be, 11B/10B, and F, and yields the main conclusion that ν-process F dominates at low metallicity while present-day F is dominated by AGB production.

Significance. The central solar-metallicity conclusion is robust: even the high-energy ν yields in Fig. 10 fall far below the solar F abundance, so the claim that AGB stars dominate present-day F does not depend on the interpolation. The paper also provides a falsifiable prediction: once α is fixed from 11B/10B, the B/Be ratio and the F evolution are no longer free, and the agreement in Figs. 8 and 12 is a nontrivial success. The main weakness is that the quantitative low-metallicity F prediction relies on an untested interpolation ansatz, and no uncertainties are propagated. These issues are fixable and do not undermine the AGB-domination result.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (3)] Section 4.2, Eq. (3): The interpolation Y = αY_low + (1−α)Y_high is applied with a single α to all ν-process products, and α = 0.9 is fixed solely from 11B/10B. This determines the F yield only if the 19F/11B production ratio is nearly independent of where the true neutrino spectrum lies between the low and high Sieverding sets. That is not demonstrated: 11B is made in the C shell while 19F is made in the Ne shell, and the two yield sets differ in several neutrino temperatures (Tνe = 2.8 vs 4 MeV; Tν̄e,νμ,τ = 4 vs 5/6 MeV). Please report the 19F/11B yield ratio for both sets, and either show that it is approximately constant or allow a separate interpolation parameter for F (e.g., fitted to the available F data). Without this, the predicted [F/H] in Fig. 12 and the low-metallicity dominance thresholds in Section 4.3 are not consequences of the 11B/10B normalization.
  2. [§4.1–4.3, Figs. 7–12] Throughout Sections 4.1–4.3: The model contains at least five fitted or uncertain inputs (star formation efficiency ν, IMF slope, GCR flux normalization, LEC strength, and α), but all quoted results are single curves with no uncertainty band or sensitivity study. The claim that the final model 'fits the data well' (Fig. 12) is therefore hard to evaluate, especially given the large dispersion in F data. Please add a sensitivity analysis, at minimum varying α within its plausible range and varying the AGB yield set, and state whether the conclusions (AGB domination at solar metallicity and ν-process domination at low [Fe/H]) survive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The text contains a typo: '[F/H[' should be '[F/H]'.
  2. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption says 'As in Fig. 7 for the evolution of [F/H]', but Fig. 7 shows B/H and Be/H; the intended cross-reference is likely Fig. 10.
  3. [§4.2] The phrase 'We normalize the "neutrino temperature" and interpolate' is misleading: the quantity actually fixed is the interpolation parameter α, not the neutrino temperature.
  4. [§2.2 / §4.2] The paper would be easier to reproduce if the adopted ν-process yields for 7Li, 11B, and 19F (low and high) were given in a table, since Eq. (3) is central to the analysis.
  5. [§5] In the concluding section, 'the present-day abundance of F, it almost entirely a result of AGB production' contains a grammatical error ('it' should be 'is').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ν-process normalization is fixed by 11B/10B, and the F abundance and B/Be are genuine outputs; the interpolation assumption is a physics caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper fits only the parameter α in Eq. (3) to the observed present-day 11B/10B = 4.05. The F abundance and B/Be ratio are not used in that fit, so the resulting F evolution in Fig. 12 and B/Be in Fig. 8 are outputs of the model rather than re-statements of the input. The same α is applied to all ν-process products; this is an explicit assumption about the relative response of 7Li, 11B, and 19F yields to neutrino temperature. If the 19F/11B yield ratio were strongly temperature dependent, the F prediction would be less robust, but this is a modeling and robustness concern, not circularity, because the F prediction cannot be algebraically reduced to the 11B/10B input by the paper's equations. The GCRN framework is drawn from the authors' earlier papers (Fields & Olive 1999; Fields et al. 2000), but those are standard and externally benchmarked calculations, and the ν-process yields come from the independent Sieverding et al. (2018) work. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely through a self-citation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction for F. The central conclusion that present-day F is dominated by AGB stars is robust even for the high-energy ν yields, as shown in Fig. 10. Therefore, there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of fitted normalizations (Be, LEC, and α) plus three published yield tables. The least secure input is the single-parameter interpolation between the low and high energy ν-process yields, which is an ad hoc assumption rather than a derived result. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • star formation efficiency ν = 0.3
    Chosen in the chemical evolution model in Section 2.1; controls the star formation rate ψ = ν M_gas.
  • IMF slope = -2.7
    Power-law IMF φ ∝ m^-2.7 assumed in Section 2.1; normalized over 0.1 to 100 solar masses.
  • GCR flux normalization = not stated
    Adjusted to match present-day Be abundance in Section 4.1, so absolute LiBeB scales are fit to data.
  • LEC component strength = not stated
    Added to match the observed slope of Be/H vs [Fe/H] at low metallicity in Section 4.1.
  • α (ν-process yield interpolation) = 0.9
    Defined in Eq. (3); set by demanding the present-day 11B/10B ratio equals 4 in Section 4.2. It linearly mixes the low and high energy yields of Sieverding et al. (2018).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The one-zone, closed-box chemical evolution model with instantaneous recycling approximations describes the Galaxy.
    Used throughout Section 2.1; a simplified treatment that ignores outflows and spatial structure.
  • domain assumption GCRN production rate follows Eq. (1) with a leaky-box propagation and a source spectrum proportional to the star formation rate.
    Adopted from Fields et al. (1994, 2000) in Section 2.2; standard but not derived here.
  • domain assumption Published stellar yields (Woosley & Weaver 1995; Karakas 2010; Sieverding et al. 2018) are accurate for C, N, O, F, Li, Be, B.
    The calculations use these yield tables as inputs; errors in them propagate directly into the results.
  • ad hoc to paper The true ν-process yields lie on the linear interpolation between the low and high energy sets of Sieverding et al. (2018).
    Eq. (3) assumes Y = α Y_low + (1-α) Y_high with the same α for all products; this is a modeling ansatz, not derived from physics.
  • domain assumption The 11B/10B ratio in the ISM is 4, as observed in meteorites.
    Used as the calibration target for α in Section 4.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining $\nu$-Process Production of Fluorine through Cosmic Ray Nucleosynthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73I6RXAA

@misc{pith2026190801723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining $\nu$-Process Production of Fluorine through Cosmic Ray Nucleosynthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73I6RXAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01723}
}
abstract

Fluorine is massive enough that it is not considered to be a light ($Z\le5$) element, yet compared to its near neighbors, C, N, O, and Ne, it is far underproduced in the course of stellar evolution, making its origin more complex. In fact, the abundance of fluorine is the lowest among all elements between Z = 5 and 21 and is roughly 3-4 orders of magnitude below that of C, N, O, and Ne. There are several plausible sources for F beyond standard stellar evolution. These include the production in the asymptotic giant branch phase (AGB) in intermediate mass stars, production in Wolf-Rayet stars, and the production through neutrino spallation in supernovae. The latter, known as the $\nu$-process, is an important source for B11, and may contribute to the abundance of Li7 as well. We combine a simple model of Galactic chemical evolution with a standard Galactic cosmic ray nucleosynthesis model to treat self-consistently the evolution of the Li, Be, and B isotopes. We include massive star production of F, as well as contributions from AGB stars, and the $\nu$-process. Given the uncertainties in neutrino energies in supernovae, we normalize the $\nu$-process using the observed B11/B10 ratio as a constraint. As a consequence, we are able to determine the relative importance of each contribution to the F abundance. We find that although the $\nu$-process dominates at early times (low metallicity), the present-day F abundance is found to originate primarily from AGB stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The abundances of [Fe/H] vs time and [O/H] as a function of [Fe/H] in a simple model for Galactic chemical evolution. Data on O/H are taken from Frebel et al. (2007); Penprase et al. (2010); Cooke et al. (2011) and data on Fe/H from Rafelski et al. (2012); Bensby et al. (2014). We have also in￾cluded here O vs Fe data taken from fluorine studies shown by the red squares (J¨onsson et al. 2017) and cyan squares (D’Ora… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The abundances of B/H and Be/H as a function of [Fe/H] in GCRN. The red curves represent the evolution in stan￾dard GCRN. The green curves include the effects of a LEC. The blue and black curves for B include the effects of ν-process produc￾tion for the low and high yields given in Sieverding et al. (2018). Sources for the data are given in the text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: , the evolution of B and Be are in reasonably good agreement with the data. The B/Be ratio shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The evolution of [F/H] as a function of [Fe/H] (upper panel) and the evolution of [F/Fe] vs [Fe/H] (lower panel). The green curves omit the ν-process contributions. The blue and black curves include the effects of ν-process production for the low and high yields given…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abia C., Canal R., 1988, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...189...55A 189, 55

    1988

  2. [2]

    V., Straniero O., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737L...8A 737, L8

    Abia C., Cunha K., Cristallo S., de Laverny P., Dom \' nguez I., Recio-Blanco A., Smith V. V., Straniero O., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737L...8A 737, L8

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/l8 2011

  3. [3]

    Abia C., Cunha K., Cristallo S., de Laverny P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...581A..88A 581, A88

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526586 2015

  4. [4]

    Alib \'e s A., Labay J., Canal R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010296 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...370.1103A 370, 1103

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010296 2001

  5. [5]

    I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A...3A 540, A3

    Alves-Brito A., Yong D., Mel \'e ndez J., V \'a squez S., Karakas A. I., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A...3A 540, A3

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118623 2012

  6. [6]

    Anders E., Grevesse N., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989GeCoA..53..197A 53, 197

    doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  7. [7]

    C., Heger A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.110n1101B 110, 141101

    Banerjee P., Qian Y.-Z., Haxton W. C., Heger A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhRvL.110n1101B 110, 141101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.141101 2013

  8. [8]

    S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..71B 562, A71

    Bensby T., Feltzing S., Oey M. S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...562A..71B 562, A71

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322631 2014

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    Bloemen H., et al., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...281L...5B 281, L5

    1994

  2. [10]

    M., King J

    Boesgaard A. M., King J. R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116803 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AJ....106.2309B 106, 2309

    1993 doi

  3. [11]

    M., King J

    Boesgaard A. M., King J. R., Deliyannis C. P., Vogt S. S., 1999a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300691 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....117..492B 117, 492

    doi

  4. [12]

    M., Deliyannis C

    Boesgaard A. M., Deliyannis C. P., King J. R., Ryan S. G., Vogt S. S., Beers T. C., 1999b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300780 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....117.1549B 117, 1549

    doi

  5. [13]

    M., Rich J

    Boesgaard A. M., Rich J. A., Levesque E. M., Bowler B. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..140B 743, 140

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Cass \'e M., Lehoucq R., Vangioni-Flam E., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1038/373318a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.373..318C 373, 318

    1995 doi

  7. [15]

    Chaussidon M., Robert F., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1038/374337a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.374..337C 374, 337

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    D., 1983, Principles of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis

    Clayton D. D., 1983, Principles of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis

    1983

  9. [18]

    V., Lambert D

    Cunha K., Smith V. V., Lambert D. L., Hinkle K. H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....126.1305C 126, 1305

    2003 doi

  10. [19]

    H., Fields B

    Cyburt R. H., Fields B. D., Olive K. A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2008/11/012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JCAP...11..012C 2008, 012

    2008 doi

  11. [20]

    H., Fields B

    Cyburt R. H., Fields B. D., Olive K. A., Yeh T.-H., 2016, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RvMP...88a5004C 88, 015004

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    D'Orazi V., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/22 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...763...22D 763, 22

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    K., Lambert D

    Duncan D. K., Lambert D. L., Lemke M., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172088 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...401..584D 401, 584

    1992 doi

  14. [23]

    K., Primas F., Rebull L

    Duncan D. K., Primas F., Rebull L. M., Boesgaard A. M., Deliyannis C. P., Hobbs L. M., King J. R., Ryan S. G., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...488..338D 488, 338

    1997 doi

  15. [24]

    K., Rebull L

    Duncan D. K., Rebull L. M., Primas F., Boesgaard A. M., Deliyannis C. P., Hobbs L. M., King J. R., Ryan S. G., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...332.1017D 332, 1017

    1998

  16. [25]

    C., Drury L

    Ellison D. C., Drury L. O., Meyer J.-P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...487..197E 487, 197

    1997 doi

  17. [26]

    R., Sheffer Y., Lambert D

    Federman S. R., Sheffer Y., Lambert D. L., Smith V. V., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619..884F 619, 884

    2005 doi

  18. [27]

    D., Olive K

    Fields B. D., Olive K. A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...516..797F 516, 797

    1999 doi

  19. [28]

    D., Olive K

    Fields B. D., Olive K. A., Schramm D. N., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174805 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...435..185F 435, 185

    1994 doi

  20. [29]

    D., Olive K

    Fields B. D., Olive K. A., Schramm D. N., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...439..854F 439, 854

    1995 doi

  21. [30]

    D., Cass \'e M., Vangioni-Flam E., Nomoto K., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..276F 462, 276

    Fields B. D., Cass \'e M., Vangioni-Flam E., Nomoto K., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...462..276F 462, 276

    1996 doi

  22. [31]

    D., Olive K

    Fields B. D., Olive K. A., Vangioni-Flam E., Cass \'e M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...540..930F 540, 930

    2000 doi

  23. [32]

    Forestini M., Goriely S., Jorissen A., Arnould M., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...261..157F 261, 157

    1992

  24. [33]

    L., Bromm V., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00344.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380L..40F 380, L40

    Frebel A., Johnson J. L., Bromm V., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00344.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380L..40F 380, L40

    2007

  25. [34]

    J., Lambert D

    Garcia Lopez R. J., Lambert D. L., Edvardsson B., Gustafsson B., Kiselman D., Rebolo R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..241G 500, 241

    1998 doi

  26. [35]

    E., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/357379a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.357..379G 357, 379

    Gilmore G., Gustafsson B., Edvardsson B., Nissen P. E., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/357379a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.357..379G 357, 379

    1992 doi

  27. [36]

    Guer c o R., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1340 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...43G 876, 43

    2019 doi

  28. [37]

    C., Langanke K., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Woosley S

    Heger A., Kolbe E., Haxton W. C., Langanke K., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Woosley S. E., 2005, @doi [Physics Letters B] 10.1016/j.physletb.2004.12.017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhLB..606..258H 606, 258

    2005 doi

  29. [38]

    C., Lingenfelter R

    Higdon J. C., Lingenfelter R. E., Ramaty R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...509L..33H 509, L33

    1998 doi

  30. [39]

    J., Rebolo R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...507..805I 507, 805

    Israelian G., Garc \' a L \'o pez R. J., Rebolo R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306351 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...507..805I 507, 805

    1998 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Bonifacio P., Molaro P., Basri G., Shchukina N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...551..833I 551, 833

    Israelian G., Rebolo R., Garc \' a L \'o pez R. J., Bonifacio P., Molaro P., Basri G., Shchukina N., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...551..833I 551, 833

    2001 doi

  32. [41]

    C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/L37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698L..37I 698, L37

    Ito H., Aoki W., Honda S., Beers T. C., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/L37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...698L..37I 698, L37

    2009 doi

  33. [42]

    J \"o nsson H., et al., 2014a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.122J 564, A122

    doi

  34. [43]

    M., Richter M

    J \"o nsson H., Ryde N., Harper G. M., Richter M. J., Hinkle K. H., 2014b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/789/2/L41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789L..41J 789, L41

    doi

  35. [44]

    J \"o nsson H., Ryde N., Spitoni E., Matteucci F., Cunha K., Smith V., Hinkle K., Schultheis M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835...50J 835, 50

    2017 doi

  36. [45]

    V., Lambert D

    Jorissen A., Smith V. V., Lambert D. L., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...261..164J 261, 164

    1992

  37. [46]

    I., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403.1413K 403, 1413

    Karakas A. I., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403.1413K 403, 1413

    2010

  38. [47]

    I., Lattanzio J

    Karakas A. I., Lattanzio J. C., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2014.21 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASA...31...30K 31, e030

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.3115K 122, 3115

    King J. R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.3115K 122, 3115

    2001 doi

  40. [49]

    I., Umeda H., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18621.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.3231K 414, 3231

    Kobayashi C., Karakas A. I., Umeda H., 2011a, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18621.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414.3231K 414, 3231

    2011

  41. [50]

    I., Yoshida T., Yong D., Umeda H., 2011b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739L..57K 739, L57

    Kobayashi C., Izutani N., Karakas A. I., Yoshida T., Yong D., Umeda H., 2011b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...739L..57K 739, L57

    doi

  42. [51]

    Kusakabe M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aafc35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...872..164K 872, 164

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    arXiv:1901.03741

    Langanke K., Martinez-Pinedo G., Sieverding A., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190103741L p. arXiv:1901.03741

    2019 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Lemoine M., Vangioni-Flam E., Cass \'e M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...499..735L 499, 735

    1998 doi

  45. [54]

    N., Ludwig H

    Li H. N., Ludwig H. G., Caffau E., Christlieb N., Zhao G., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765...51L 765, 51

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    A., Pignatari M., Herwig F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729...40L 729, 40

    Lucatello S., Masseron T., Johnson J. A., Pignatari M., Herwig F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/729/1/40 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...729...40L 729, 40

    2011 doi

  47. [56]

    Meneguzzi M., Reeves H., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....40...99M 40, 99

    1975

  48. [57]

    Meneguzzi M., Audouze J., Reeves H., 1971, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971A&A....15..337M 15, 337

    1971

  49. [58]

    Meynet G., Arnould M., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...355..176M 355, 176

    2000

  50. [59]

    Molaro P., Bonifacio P., Castelli F., Pasquini L., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...319..593M 319, 593

    1997

  51. [60]

    Mowlavi N., Jorissen A., Arnould M., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...311..803M 311, 803

    1996

  52. [61]

    Mowlavi N., Jorissen A., Arnould M., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...334..153M 334, 153

    1998

  53. [62]

    A., Pilachowski C

    Nault K. A., Pilachowski C. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/6/153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146..153N 146, 153

    2013 doi

  54. [63]

    E., Primas F., Asplund M., Lambert D

    Nissen P. E., Primas F., Asplund M., Lambert D. L., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020736 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...390..235N 390, 235

    2002 doi

  55. [64]

    A., Schramm D

    Olive K. A., Schramm D. N., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/360439a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.360..439O 360, 439

    1992 doi

  56. [65]

    A., Prantzos N., Scully S., Vangioni-Flam E., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...424..666O 424, 666

    Olive K. A., Prantzos N., Scully S., Vangioni-Flam E., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173922 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...424..666O 424, 666

    1994 doi

  57. [66]

    Parizot E. M. G., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...331..726P 331, 726

    1998

  58. [67]

    Parizot E., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...362..786P 362, 786

    2000

  59. [68]

    Parizot E., Drury L., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...356L..66P 356, L66

    2000

  60. [69]

    E., Prochaska J

    Penprase B. E., Prochaska J. X., Sargent W. L. W., Toro-Martinez I., Beeler D. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721....1P 721, 1

    2010 doi

  61. [70]

    A., Pace C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150...66P 150, 66

    Pilachowski C. A., Pace C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150...66P 150, 66

    2015 doi

  62. [71]

    Pitrou C., Coc A., Uzan J.-P., Vangioni E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.04.005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhR...754....1P 754, 1

    2018 doi

  63. [72]

    K., Peterson R

    Primas F., Duncan D. K., Peterson R. C., Thorburn J. A., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...343..545P 343, 545

    1999

  64. [73]

    Primas F., Molaro P., Bonifacio P., Hill V., 2000a, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...362..666P 362, 666

  65. [74]

    E., Hill V., 2000b, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...364L..42P 364, L42

    Primas F., Asplund M., Nissen P. E., Hill V., 2000b, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...364L..42P 364, L42

  66. [75]

    M., Prochaska J

    Rafelski M., Wolfe A. M., Prochaska J. X., Neeleman M., Mendez A. J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/89 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755...89R 755, 89

    2012 doi

  67. [76]

    E., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...438L..21R 438, L21

    Ramaty R., Kozlovsky B., Lingenfelter R. E., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187705 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...438L..21R 438, L21

    1995 doi

  68. [77]

    E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...456..525R 456, 525

    Ramaty R., Kozlovsky B., Lingenfelter R. E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...456..525R 456, 525

    1996 doi

  69. [78]

    M., Viola V

    Read S. M., Viola V. E. J., 1984, @doi [Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables] 10.1016/0092-640X(84)90009-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ADNDT..31..359R 31, 359

    1984 doi

  70. [79]

    E., 1988, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...193..193R 193, 193

    Rebolo R., Molaro P., Abia C., Beckman J. E., 1988, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988A&A...193..193R 193, 193

    1988

  71. [80]

    C., Melo C., Israelian G., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...538A.117R 538, A117

    Recio-Blanco A., de Laverny P., Worley C., Santos N. C., Melo C., Israelian G., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...538A.117R 538, A117

    2012 doi

  72. [81]

    A., Hoyle F., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1038/226727a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.226..727R 226, 727

    Reeves H., Fowler W. A., Hoyle F., 1970, @doi [ ] 10.1038/226727a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970Natur.226..727R 226, 727

    1970 doi

  73. [82]

    Renda A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08215.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.354..575R 354, 575

    2004

  74. [83]

    Renda A., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.05.058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005NuPhA.758..324R 758, 324

    2005 doi

  75. [84]

    A., Boesgaard A

    Rich J. A., Boesgaard A. M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701.1519R 701, 1519

    2009 doi

  76. [85]

    G., Bessell M

    Ryan S. G., Bessell M. S., Sutherland R. S., Norris J. E., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/185630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...348L..57R 348, L57

    1990 doi

  77. [86]

    G., Norris J

    Ryan S. G., Norris J. E., Bessell M. S., Deliyannis C., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171141 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...388..184R 388, 184

    1992 doi

  78. [87]

    Sieverding A., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Huther L., Langanke K., Heger A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...865..143S 865, 143

    2018 doi

  79. [88]

    G., Randich S., Wolff B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...499..103S 499, 103

    Smiljanic R., Pasquini L., Bonifacio P., Galli D., Gratton R. G., Randich S., Wolff B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810592 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...499..103S 499, 103

    2009 doi

  80. [89]

    P., Destree J

    Snow T. P., Destree J. D., Jensen A. G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510187 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...655..285S 655, 285

    2007 doi

  81. [90]

    J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..44S 624, A44

    Spite M., Bonifacio P., Spite F., Caffau E., Sbordone L., Gallagher A. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..44S 624, A44

    2019 doi

  82. [91]

    Spitoni E., Matteucci F., J \"o nsson H., Ryde N., Romano D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732092 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A..16S 612, A16

    2018 doi

  83. [92]

    P., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186266 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...385L..13S 385, L13

    Steigman G., Walker T. P., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186266 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...385L..13S 385, L13

    1992 doi

  84. [93]

    Suda T., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/60.5.1159 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PASJ...60.1159S 60, 1159

    2008 doi

  85. [94]

    A., Hobbs L

    Thorburn J. A., Hobbs L. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....111.2106T 111, 2106

    1996 doi

  86. [95]

    X., Woosley S

    Timmes F. X., Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS...98..617T 98, 617

    1995 doi

  87. [96]

    A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.3561V 484, 3561

    Vangioni E., Olive K. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.3561V 484, 3561

    2019 doi

  88. [97]

    Vangioni-Flam E., Cass \'e M., Audouze J., Oberto Y., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/169439 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...364..568V 364, 568

    1990 doi

  89. [98]

    D., Olive K

    Vangioni-Flam E., Cass \'e M., Fields B. D., Olive K. A., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...468..199V 468, 199

    1996 doi

  90. [99]

    A., Cass \'e M., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...337..714V 337, 714

    Vangioni-Flam E., Ramaty R., Olive K. A., Cass \'e M., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...337..714V 337, 714

    1998

  91. [100]

    P., Viola V

    Walker T. P., Viola V. E., Mathews G. J., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...299..745W 299, 745

    1985 doi

  92. [101]

    P., Steigman G., Schramm D

    Walker T. P., Steigman G., Schramm D. N., Olive K. A., Fields B., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...413..562W 413, 562

    1993 doi

  93. [102]

    W., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...433..641W 433, 641

    Werner K., Rauch T., Kruk J. W., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042258 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...433..641W 433, 641

    2005 doi

  94. [103]

    E., Haxton W

    Woosley S. E., Haxton W. C., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/334045a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.334...45W 334, 45

    1988 doi

  95. [104]

    E., Weaver T

    Woosley S. E., Weaver T. A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192237 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS..101..181W 101, 181

    1995 doi

  96. [105]

    E., Hartmann D

    Woosley S. E., Hartmann D. H., Hoffman R. D., Haxton W. C., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...356..272W 356, 272

    1990 doi

  97. [106]

    I., Norris J

    Yong D., Mel \'e ndez J., Cunha K., Karakas A. I., Norris J. E., Smith V. V., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592229 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1020Y 689, 1020

    2008 doi

  98. [107]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

  99. [108]

    @esa ( ) , n @biblabelnum##1 ##1

    \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded nlinproc natbib The nlinproc class already includes natbib cod...

  100. [109]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  101. [110]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

    1969

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.