I Mapped a Grant's Literature With Scite's Citation Graph
Scite shows which papers support or contradict a claim. For a grant, that map is the difference between 'trust me' and evidence.
A grant proposal needs a literature section that holds up. Scite let me enter the key papers and see, per claim, how many later studies supported or contradicted them. That's the map a reviewer wants: not 'here are sources' but 'here is where the field agrees and where it fights.'
The workflow: I pulled the foundational papers, used Scite's citation context to find the contradicting studies, and addressed them head-on in the proposal. Reviewers respect a section that names its own disagreements more than one that pretends consensus.
It also caught a paper I'd been citing that later work had walked back. Without Scite I'd have shipped a claim the field had moved past. The tool didn't write the section; it kept me from embarrassing the proposal with a stale reference.
If you write grants or literature reviews, the support-contrast view is the feature. Build the map before you write, and the narrative writes itself around what the citations actually show.