THE ROSIA MONTANĂ MINING PROJECT A BUSINESS-PSYCHOLOGY PRESENTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1997, a Canadian corporation obtained the concession license for exploitation of gold and silver ores of an old Roman gold mine, at Rosia Montană, Romania, with the intention of developing it into one of the most ambitious business projects, of Eastern Europe. The intended technology for the project was “gold cyanidation” (also known as the cyanide process or the MacArthur-Forrest process) a technique for extracting gold from low-grade ore by converting the gold to a water soluble coordination complex. The essential agreement was a Canadian, 80% – Romanian 20% cooperation project, according to which, the Canadian corporation was to take the extracted gold out of the country leaving behind the cyanide-poisoned environment. Such a deal could have succeeded only as a result of a vast public relations campaign, which had to rest on the best possible application of business psychology factors. This paper examines the Rosia Montana project by using Herbert A. Simon’s views of the decision making processes in a given organization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".