Indeed, the beauty of using a graph is you can see the direct citations, and then secondary and teritiery ones and then pull apart the clusters to see if there

Indeed, the beauty of using a graph is you can see the direct citations, and then secondary and teritiery ones and then pull apart the clusters to see if there is any opportunity to pull on mathematical threads. A query like, given paper X, show papers that cite it, papers that cite those, and then ones that cite both. Cycles in the graph might show citation rings as well (as I think has happened in the past), but this would be a challenge for young people to apply their high school calculus skills to verifying claims in social science research. A breadth first search across papers using citations selects which paths you want to do your depth first validation on. We do the same thing in vulnerability research with software dependencies, and picking a bad-math vuln in a discipline and tracing its impact though, or picking clusters of tightly dependent research and finding vulns in them seems like an opportunity for an enterprising outsider who never wants a job from any of these people.