for systematic completeness at that scale, Semantic Scholar's API (semanticscholar.org/product/api) and OpenAlex (openalex.org) are worth knowing about. both have full-text search, citation graph traversal, and free bulk access -- Semantic Scholar covers 200M+ papers. you can query by keyword, field of study, even author affiliation, then follow citation chains to surface papers that cite your known key works. deep research tools are fine for discovery but won't give you completeness guarantees; a proper systematic review workflow usually combines S2/OpenAlex keyword search + snowballing through citation graphs + dedup by DOI.
One option that shouldn't be overlooked: get a temporary subscription to an OpenAI model that allows you to run what they originally called "deep research" (nowadays called "Extended Pro" mode.) This isn't available on the freebie chat page, it will require at least a $20/month subscription (and maybe more, not sure.)
Then, basically paste your post into the prompt and let it crunch. It will take up to 30 minutes or so, and will often give you a reasonably comprehensive report in which most of the references actually exist. It is absolutely a better-Google-than-Google class of resource.
I'll do that and see if it comes up with anything meaningful, and also try it on Gemini 3.1. For a query like this I wouldn't expect it to return a list of thousands of individual reports, but it might give you some good leads that you can follow up with your existing journal access.
Thanks. I've got an OpenAI subscription and tried this in the past, and got a handful of results, but nothing comprehensive. Perhaps it is better now, or I could change the way I ask.
No prob, see if there's anything useful in any of the links I added to the post. I'm always interested in good benchmarks and test cases, as I usually don't have enough of my own to justify my expensive pro subscriptions. (I did not review them myself as I don't know what I'm looking at.)
for systematic completeness at that scale, Semantic Scholar's API (semanticscholar.org/product/api) and OpenAlex (openalex.org) are worth knowing about. both have full-text search, citation graph traversal, and free bulk access -- Semantic Scholar covers 200M+ papers. you can query by keyword, field of study, even author affiliation, then follow citation chains to surface papers that cite your known key works. deep research tools are fine for discovery but won't give you completeness guarantees; a proper systematic review workflow usually combines S2/OpenAlex keyword search + snowballing through citation graphs + dedup by DOI.
One option that shouldn't be overlooked: get a temporary subscription to an OpenAI model that allows you to run what they originally called "deep research" (nowadays called "Extended Pro" mode.) This isn't available on the freebie chat page, it will require at least a $20/month subscription (and maybe more, not sure.)
Then, basically paste your post into the prompt and let it crunch. It will take up to 30 minutes or so, and will often give you a reasonably comprehensive report in which most of the references actually exist. It is absolutely a better-Google-than-Google class of resource.
I'll do that and see if it comes up with anything meaningful, and also try it on Gemini 3.1. For a query like this I wouldn't expect it to return a list of thousands of individual reports, but it might give you some good leads that you can follow up with your existing journal access.
Edit:
GPT results: https://chatgpt.com/share/699df5db-b3d4-800b-b737-224319593e...
Gemini 3.1 Pro results: https://gemini.google.com/share/bd22eb43c13b
Thanks. I've got an OpenAI subscription and tried this in the past, and got a handful of results, but nothing comprehensive. Perhaps it is better now, or I could change the way I ask.
No prob, see if there's anything useful in any of the links I added to the post. I'm always interested in good benchmarks and test cases, as I usually don't have enough of my own to justify my expensive pro subscriptions. (I did not review them myself as I don't know what I'm looking at.)