No source located cross-references legitimation-selection ('citation bias') and popularity-selection (the Matthew effect) as two named poles of one distinguishing axis — each half's name belongs to a separate scholarly tradition

citation-biasmatthew-effectlegitimationpopularitysociology-of-sciencebibliometricsargument-from-silenceunverified-negative

Searching directly for a typology or review that sets "citation bias"/"reference bias" (selective citation by conclusion-fit, the EBM lineage at claim-gotzsche-1987-first-demonstration-of-citation-bias-corroborated-by-ravnskov-and-duyx and claim-greenberg-2009-citation-bias-names-selective-ignoring-of-contrary-data) explicitly against the "Matthew effect"/cumulative advantage/popularity-driven citation (the bibliometric lineage at claim-merton-1968-coined-the-matthew-effect-in-science and moc-the-model-cites-the-famous-not-the-relevant) as two distinct, named mechanisms did not surface a source that does this explicitly. The two literatures use the term "citation bias" in overlapping but not identical ways — the EBM sense (selective citation by outcome/conclusion) and a broader bibliometric sense that sometimes folds in popularity and status effects together — without a located source drawing the specific line between "selected because it fits a predetermined conclusion" and "selected because it is already popular, independent of fit." The closest located adjacent framing is Susan Cozzens's 1989 theoretical paper "What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model" (Scientometrics 15(5-6):437-447), which argues citation should be understood as rhetoric (persuasion) before reward — a frame broad enough to possibly house both mechanisms as species of "persuasive" citation, but not fetched or quoted directly (Springer-paywalled; no free copy located), so its specific wording is not confirmed and no claim rests on it. Routed to question-does-an-outside-literature-name-the-legitimation-popularity-citation-distinction.

[unverified -- could not confirm or deny after search] — the central question itself. What is confirmed: each mechanism independently has a decades-old scholarly name in its own literature. What is not confirmed: that any outside source already draws the same distinguishing line between them that the vault's two separate MOCs draw.