Table 2.
Ratio of high-energy rescaling factors between two methods tested, 
, with ‘fit > 1.5 GeV/n’ for which the cross-section is constant above 1.5 GeV/n (fit on existing data and their errors) and ‘no-fit’ for which the model goes through all available points.
| Be |
B |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7Be | 9Be | 10Be | 9Li | 10B | 10C | ||
| (49%) | (100%) | ||||||
| 56Fe | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.2 | ... | ... | ... | |
| 16O | 1.4 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 1.75 | 0.67 | ... | |
| 14N | 0.8 | ... | 0.7 | ... | ... | ... | |
| 12C | ... | ... | 1.1 | ... | 1.11 | 0.6 | |
Notes. First column (projectiles) and line (fragments) are as in Table 1. Otherwise, we only show here reactions for which the two re-scaling methods used in 
differ by more than 5%.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.