JurisRank is a computational tool for measuring the authority of Argentine court decisions through citation network analysis. Its methodology is peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology:
Lerer, I.A. (2026). "Computational Detection of Constitutional Drift: Network Analysis and Semantic Measurement of Argentine Supreme Court Jurisprudence (1922–2025)." Journal of Computational Law and Legal Technology. DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951
Academic validation: κ = 0.83 inter-coder reliability · k-fold cross- validation (k=5) · 73.2% mean accuracy · Monte Carlo simulations (n=1,000).
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
| Algorithm | Purpose |
|---|---|
| JurisRank | PageRank + temporal decay — recent citations weighted higher |
| RootFinder | Ancestral Borrowing Analysis Network — traces doctrinal genealogy |
| Legal-Memespace | Principal Component Analysis — maps multidimensional doctrine |
| Score | Meaning | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| > 0.8 | Leading case — highest citation authority | Cite first, with score |
| 0.6–0.8 | Widely cited — strong precedential weight | Cite with score |
| 0.4–0.6 | Relevant — moderate authority | Cite with note |
| < 0.4 | Limited authority — outlier or isolated | Orientation only |
| Not found | No network presence detected | Declare absence of precedent |
When multiple cases address the same issue, JurisRank identifies which carry the most authority in the citation network → cite the most influential first, in ranked order.
Trace how CSJN or appellate court doctrine evolved on a specific topic. Identify whether the most recent decision continues or breaks from prior doctrine.
Verify whether precedents cited by opposing counsel are genuinely authoritative or low-influence outliers.
Detect shifts in citation patterns that signal doctrinal erosion or realignment — original application from the JCLLT paper.
1. Identify topic or specific cases to analyze
2. Query JurisRank API:
GET https://api.jurisrank.com/v1/cases?query=<topic>
POST https://api.jurisrank.com/v1/analyze-authority {"case_id": "..."}
3. Interpret Authority Score and citation network position
4. Apply RootFinder for genealogy if doctrinal evolution is needed
5. Produce ranked analysis with citation recommendations
JurisRank implements groundedness verification per the Stanford Legal AI Benchmark (Magesh et al., 2024):
Before including any case in the analysis:
Never cite a case not found in the JurisRank network without explicitly declaring it as unverified.
JURISRANK ANALYSIS — [Topic]
Date: [date] | Tool: JurisRank (Lerer, 2026, JCLLT)
## RANKED PRECEDENTS BY AUTHORITY
| Case | Court | Year | Authority Score | Network Position |
|------|-------|------|----------------|-----------------|
| ... | CSJN | ... | 0.92 | Leading case |
## DOCTRINAL EVOLUTION
[Timeline: how doctrine developed]
## CITATION NETWORK
[Which cases cite each other; doctrinal clusters]
## RECOMMENDATION
[Which cases to cite · in what order · why]
Ignacio Adrián Lerer is an Argentine attorney and independent researcher. JurisRank was developed as part of research on computational legal analysis published in peer-reviewed journals. The tool is registered with Argentina's DNDA (copyright registry) and has a patent application pending at INPI Argentina.
Contact: justitia.com.ar