{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019674520281758562, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005829487490891426, 'mean_word_length': 5.414330218068536, '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}}
The Córdoba Observatory and the History of the ‘Personal Equation’ (1871–1886)

1. IntroductionThe Cordoba Observatory in Argentina, founded in 1871 with state funds, was directed until 1886 by Benjamin Gould, an American trained by German astronomers.' His work there began at an interesting time for the basic aims of international astronomy, as astronomers sought to unify astronomical catalogues and maps, previously heterogeneous because they were used in more limited areas. There was, then, an endeavour to get on paper the entire firmament, and for all the world's observatory equipment to use the same technical criteria. This period included the introduction of the electric chronograph to standardize the measurement of time for astronomical observations, the construction of photometers in order to reach a consensus on measuring star brightness, international agreements on common units of measurement and reference points for use in astronomical calculations of terrestrial distances, and conventions regarding astronomical work regulation.2 At the Cordoba Observatory, the working teams would participate in all these processes, forming a fundamental section in the construction of the "southern sky" scientific object.3The increase in resources invested in astronomy during this process meant not only a proliferation of scientists dedicated to the activity, but also a transformation in their work. Astronomers no longer worked with their own instruments, and their schedules were set by a management hierarchy that organized the teams employed to examine the skies. Some of their skills - and with them the control over their work rate - became obsolete as new instruments were incorporated, while their findings were appropriated and continued by other astronomers. John Lankford shows how as labour was divided and new devices acquired, astronomers became less qualified.4 Along the same lines, Simon Schaffer comments that in the late nineteenth century, at the Greenwich Observatory, the director sought to hire tireless, reliable, obedient and unqualified workers who were supervised with remarkable discipline.5 This historical process led Lankford to consider that by the twentieth century even "factory observatories" could be found.6 Lankford analyses the workings of a large observatory as if it were a company, where the astronomer who directed the institution would have become a manager of sorts, a kind of CEO.Taking this historical context into account, the attempt by observatory directors to prevent certain errors made by observers included in the 'personal equation' concept was redefined by some scholars as just another step in the drawing up of disciplinary rules for the new division of labour.7 The tensions that 'personal equations' led to in the observatories of the time have generated controversy among historians, who have either considered them a habitual problem that was standardized and absorbed as a probabilistic aspect in calculations, to which astronomers would never have paid much attention, or, in contrast, as an obstacle to be dealt with and resolved only through rigid discipline and control over observatory assistants. Hoffman, dealing with some aspects of the question raised by Jimena Canales, adds another nuance in pointing out the initial development of the issue.8 He claims that it is true that, at some point in the early nineteenth century, the way observers made mistakes ceased to be self-evident and became a scientific problem that needed to be investigated. Previously, either the error was absorbed by probabilistic calculations, when it was not constant for each observer, or errors were prevented through training, self-control and better instruments that prevented constant errors - whether these were attributed to insufficient training, misinterpretation of data, or the lack of consideration of a certain anatomic structure of the senses that hindered perception in the recordings. In contrast, the difference that Friedrich Bessel started to detect was involuntary and could not be eliminated even when all precautions were taken. …