Supplementary file 1_Pathological fixation on shared beliefs: a review and bibliometric analysis of extreme, overvalued and delusion-like beliefs.docx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction As researchers, practitioners, and policymakers highlight the changing landscape of security concerns, the growing domestic terrorist threat of radicalised lone actors cannot be overlooked. Extreme, overvalued and delusion-like beliefs are one piece of the puzzle, as adherence to shared extreme beliefs and conspiracy theories has become increasingly concerning in recent years. While interest and awareness have grown, there is a notable lack of consistency in conceptualisation and terminology across disciplines. A bibliometric analysis helped highlight existing focus areas across disciplines, current gaps and opportunities for future research. Methodology The Web of Science Core Collection was searched to identify publications on extreme overvalued beliefs, overvalued ideas, delusion-like beliefs, extreme beliefs, extremist beliefs, radical beliefs and strongly held ideas from January 2005 to September 2025. Trends in publications, dates and contributing countries were explored, and all results were uploaded to VOSviewer. A map based on bibliographic data focused on a keyword co-occurrence analysis was then generated and analysed separately for each concept in the search, and then combined to explore research focus in medicine and social sciences. Results The majority of publications were from the United States, followed by England, Australia and Canada. There was a gradual increase in publications from 2005, a spike in 2015 and a notably increased focus since 2020. Co-occurring keywords with the strongest links were different for the concepts searched, but overlapped significantly between overvalued and delusion-like beliefs and on extreme beliefs and radical beliefs. The focus was also different in psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience and medicine compared to social science disciplines (law, sociology, philosophy, anthropology and criminology). Discussion This bibliometric review presents current knowledge, limitations, gaps, and recommendations for future studies on extreme, overvalued, and delusion-like beliefs. The review highlighted significant blurring of concepts between extreme, overvalued, and delusion-like beliefs and strongly held ideas that were striated along disciplinary lines. A need for greater consensus on the definitions and overlap of these terms was identified and discussed. By clarifying conceptual ambiguities, this review provides a foundation for developing cross-disciplinary consensus in threat assessment.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.160 | 0.339 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.951 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".