MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From Counters to Self-Checkouts: A Systematic Review of Factors Affecting Operational Efficiency in Retail Automation

2025· article· en· W4414606053 on OpenAlexaff
Leah Mae Sabas, Shadi Ebrahimi Mehrabani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering Management & Applied Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsInterface Biologics (Canada)IBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)WorkforceOperational efficiencyKey (lock)AutomationIdentification (biology)Element (criminal law)Technological change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract— The Self-Checkout System (SCS) is a key element of retail automation, designed to improve operational efficiency and enhance customer convenience. This systematic literature review synthesizes insights from 16 peer-reviewed Q1/Q2 studies published between 2020 and 2025, leading to the identification of four critical factors influencing efficiency: technological design, user behavior, organizational preparedness, and workforce impact. The findings suggest that a combination of advanced perception technologies (e.g., AI vision, depth cameras), user-centered interface design, process reengineering, and comprehensive staff training, including cross-training for hybrid support roles, plays a pivotal role in shaping outcomes. Recent research also highlights emerging adoption drivers such as reduced stigma around sensitive purchases, increased privacy awareness, and shifting dynamics of customer empowerment. Efficiency is not an inherent attribute of the system alone, but rather the result of interactions among technology, users, and institutional contexts. Retailers and policymakers are encouraged to pursue integrated design approaches that holistically align technological innovation, store operations, and human labor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering Management & Applied ScienceSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207