{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.043875685557586835, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04570383912248629, 'mean_word_length': 4.887096774193548, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Correction to “Azimuthal seismic anisotropy constrains net rotation of the lithosphere”

[1] The paper ‘‘Azimuthal seismic anisotropy constrains net rotation of the lithosphere’’ (Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L05303, doi:10.1029/2007GL032928, 2008) contains a misleading sentence in paragraph [19]. The match to one seismological map was improved moderately by addition of a hypothetical net rotation (NR) to the starting model. With respect to this best-fit pole, it was stated: ‘‘This central Pacific location leads to N-S shear over central Asia, but all of the recorded NR poles within the last 120 Ma from Lithgow-Bertelloni et al. [1993] are off to the west by at least 10,000 km from this best-fit Euler pole.’’ While this statement is correct, the 10 Ma stage NR pole is actually within a smaller distance, 5,000 km, to the east of the central Africa antipode of the best-fit pole, which is equivalent for considerations of anisotropy. The 10 Ma pole had regrettably been omitted from our previous distance estimates by an oversight. The conclusions of the paper remain unaffected.