JurisRank — Argentine Jurisprudential Authority Analysis
What JurisRank Is
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)
Three Algorithms
Coverage
- Argentine Supreme Court (CSJN) — 1922 to present
- National and federal courts of appeals (Cámaras nacionales y federales)
- Selected provincial supreme courts
- Relevant international precedents cited by Argentine courts
Authority Score Interpretation
Use Cases
1. Selecting case law for briefs and memos
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.
2. Doctrinal evolution analysis
Trace how CSJN or appellate court doctrine evolved on a specific topic.
Identify whether the most recent decision continues or breaks from prior
doctrine.
3. Adversarial jurisprudential due diligence
Verify whether precedents cited by opposing counsel are genuinely
authoritative or low-influence outliers.
4. Constitutional drift detection
Detect shifts in citation patterns that signal doctrinal erosion or
realignment — original application from the JCLLT paper.
Workflow
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
Anti-Hallucination Rules
JurisRank implements groundedness verification per the Stanford Legal AI
Benchmark (Magesh et al., 2024):
Before including any case in the analysis:
- Confirm Authority Score > 0.0 (case exists in the network)
- Verify jurisdiction matches the forum of the matter
- Check temporal decay: has a more-cited posterior decision superseded it?
- Verify the case actually supports the proposition — not just addresses the topic
Never cite a case not found in the JurisRank network without explicitly
declaring it as unverified.
Output Format
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]
About the Author
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