MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115706321 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2025.10.007

From cash to contactless: Structural break evidence from Saudi Arabia’s POS transaction patterns

2025· article· en· W7115706321 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabase transactionPaymentCashInvestment (military)Service (business)Sandbox (software development)Financial transactionFinancial servicesAsset (computer security)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point-of-sale (POS) transactions are considered one of the fundamental components of retail financial systems. The performance of the POS service network relies heavily on a reliable and secure e-banking infrastructure driven by usage patterns. In this study, we perform a structural break analysis to identify all points in the POS transaction time series where major structural behavioral shifts have occurred. We then investigated the potential sources of these shifts in the data. The analysis revealed four major shifts between 2019 and 2023. The corresponding events, such as the introduction of Apple Pay, the broader rollout of MADA’s contactless and mobile payment infrastructure, COVID-19, SAMA’s regulatory sandbox and open banking pilot projects, and structural changes in banking technology and regulation, are evident as potential drivers of these changes. These results are useful for planners doing digital infrastructure management, expansion, and investment planning, as well as performing policy formulation and responses.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207