Hoje atualizei minha distribuição TeX devido a outro problema, de uma distro TL13 por volta de setembro de 2013, para uma distro TL14 (mais recente).
Depois de atualizar, flowframignora uma das minhas \newflowframedeclarações, fazendo com flowframque continue usando o layout de três colunas imitado das declarações anteriores. Isso só parece acontecer com minha bibliografia, usando natbib.
O seguinte código:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[margin=2cm]{geometry}
\usepackage{flowfram}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\usepackage{kantlipsum}
\usepackage[bitstream-charter]{mathdesign}
\usepackage[square, numbers, sort]{natbib}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\newflowframe[1,2]{\dimexpr\textwidth/3-2\columnsep/3}{\textheight}{0pt}{0pt}
\newflowframe[1,2]{\dimexpr\textwidth/3-2\columnsep/3}{\textheight}{\dimexpr\textwidth/3-2\columnsep/3+\columnsep}{0pt}
\newflowframe[1,2]{\dimexpr\textwidth/3-2\columnsep/3}{\textheight}{\dimexpr2\textwidth/3-4\columnsep/3+2\columnsep}{0pt}
\newflowframe[3]{\textwidth}{\textheight}{0pt}{0pt}% or \newflowframe*[>2]{\textwidth}{\textheight}{0pt}{0pt}
\begin{document}
\tolerance=4000
When considering the EoL phase, it's desirable to initially consider the shortest possible cycles of energy, namely reuse, and in closing consider the largest possible cycle, which would be recycling. Case studies in the UK have mapped the waste problem to comprise as much as 15 million discarded mobile phones each year\citep{website:fonebak}. Large scale reuse brings problems, however. A variety of problems arise when considering reuse of mobile phones, such as their low residual value, their small size or the complexity of channels through which they are distributed\citep{ends1997}. Furthermore, a case study reveals most private customers prefer to give mobile phones away\citep{ends2000}, making the previously mentioned legislation of EPR a considerably hard task to achieve. Currently, manufacturers, retails and mobile phone operators. Figures from Foneback\citep{website:fonebak} suggest this to be inadequate. One suggestion would be to promote horizontal collaboration between competitors\citep{canning2006}. Coercion among competitors puts forward a problem in the same fashion as that of renewable energy in the industry sector, namely the problem of managing and putting constraints on collective goods: to promote a change, everybody has to invest into renewable energy. So even though competitors would want to make a change, that change hits a threshhold. A consequence of such constraints is a hit to the economy as we know it now, which inherently forces a gradual change. One recommendation would be to develop a mathematical model, determining how steep this gradual change would have to be to compensate for the need for change currently. Removing a such barrier would be vital to success of reuse practices as we know them now.
\lipsum[1-8]
\cleardoublepage
\small
\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}
\bibliography{paper}
\end{document}
Com algumas entradas de babador, ele realmente compõe uma bibliografia:
@misc{website:fonebak,
title = {Fonebak - Facts},
url = {http://www.fonebak.com/},
note = {(accessed 28-9-2014)},
year = {2014}
}
@REPORT{ends1997,
author = {Environmental Data Services (ENDS)},
title = {Take back schemes launched for mobile phones},
issue = {264},
year = {1997},
month = {January}
}
@REPORT{ends2000,
author = {Environmental Data Services (ENDS)},
title = {Compliance scheme envisaged for mobile phone recycling},
issue = {304},
year = {2000},
month = {May}
}
@ARTICLE{canning2006,
author = {Louise Canning},
title = {Rethinking market connections: mobile phone recovery, reuse and recycling in the {UK}},
journal = {Journal of Business \& Industrial Marketing},
volume = {21},
issue = {5},
year = {2006},
pages = {320--329}
}
Ambos os arquivos também podem ser obtidos através do seguinte link: (pacote zip)
O flowframe de layout de coluna única declarado anteriormente ( \newflowframe[3]{\textwidth}{\textheight}{0pt}{0pt}% or \newflowframe*[>2]{\textwidth}{\textheight}{0pt}{0pt}) é (aparentemente) ignorado. Em vez disso, ele continua a compor um layout de três colunas:
Anteriormente, a saída simplesmente obedecia ao layout que declarei, algo assim (do documento principal - obviamente não consigo mais imitar o resultado):
Responder1
Este é um efeito colateral indesejado de uma correção de bug necessária para corrigir um problema quando os ambientes de lista abrangem dois quadros de fluxo de larguras diferentes. Aqui está um exemplo mínimo que ilustra o problema:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{flowfram}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\twocolumn[1,2]
\onecolumn[>2]
\begin{document}
\lipsum[1-10]
\clearpage
\lipsum[1]
\begin{itemize}
\item \lipsum*[2]
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
O problema afeta apenas os ambientes de lista e como a bibliografia está em um desses ambientes, essa é a causa do problema no seu documento. Você pode consertar isso inserindo \linewidth\columnwidthantes do ambiente da lista. Por exemplo:
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{flowfram}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\twocolumn[1,2]
\onecolumn[>2]
\begin{document}
\lipsum[1-10]
\clearpage
\lipsum[1]
\linewidth\columnwidth
\begin{itemize}
\item \lipsum*[2]
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
Para o seu documento de exemplo, coloque \linewidth\columnwidthna frente de \bibliography.
Editar: Corrigi esse bug e carreguei a versão 1.17 no CTAN. Pode levar alguns dias para entrar nas distribuições.