It's just a saying™️
A theory that is not well accepted will be cited less, even if it's being cited to be debunked the citations still count as impact, however an article with a greater impact will be cited significantly more which suggests the theory is more compelling.
As far as my understanding goes.
It's just a saying™️
If there are multiple entire scientific fields and industries that rely on the earth being billions and not thousands of years old for literally all of their work, then we can say "most scholars" believe Young Earth Creationism is wrong.
In modern media it pretty much just means they found two people who think that. If they want to get "official" they can arrange for polls to be done but those are very easily crafted to get the results they want.
I don't think it's an objective metric. Based on my experience, they talk amongst each other at research institutions, conferences, and through journal articles. If someone claims "most experts think x" when in reality most experts do not, then most experts hearing it will probably speak up about how wrong it is, shoot it down during peer review, or publish scathing critiques in response to it.
A "most experts" proclamation that aligns with reality will also cite several prior publications that have also been read and cited widely, which shows the idea has kinda stood the test of time.
Source: I been in the game a while, despite several attempts to escape. I do wonder if other fields have more objective approaches.