CiteTrak: The Best-of-Breed
Algorithm
That Streamlines The Retrieval Task,
Personalizes The Analysis Task &
Individualizes The Validation Task |
| |
CiteTrak is the
brand name we use for the first mover,
best-of-breed algorithm that makes the
magic happen the instant you click
Search. We released CiteTrak on May 1, 2008 (after
nearly 10 years in business).
Interestly, with the recent release of WestlawNext, Canadian media
conglomerate Thomson Reuter's is
playing catch
up as they attempt to drag their
market of large users away from the
tedium of mass customized 19th century
book browsing - on the page and screen - toward
the efficiency of individualized 21st century compusearching.
WestlawNext rents for up to
$3,400 an
hour without providing the
detailed insight and functionality
listed below.
CiteTrak is guaranteed to free your mind, schedule and
wallet, while
dramatically changing how you think about
legal research. |
| |
|
At The Point Of 'Search' |
| |
Show me the cases
citing my Code
(constitutional principle, statute,
rule, regulation) and/or Concept.
Show the opinions citing my Code or
Concept for my reason.
Examples:
1. “fifth amendment” and “ex-post facto” (asks for cases that
include at least one reference to each
phrase)
2. 42 and 1983 and “excessive force” (asks for cases that include the
title number, section number and civil
rights related concept)
3. “100 F.2d 200” and 42 and 1983 and “excessive force” (asks for
cases citing my case, my statute and my
concept) |
| |
In The Results:
Citing References & Frequency
Generally |
| |
For each case in the results and without
having to re-execute my search, tell me
and link me separately to:
--the number of general citing
references nationally
--the number of general citing
references for the U.S. Supreme Court
--the number of general citing
references for my Federal circuit
--the number of general citing
references for my Federal district
--the number of general citing
references, if any, for my Federal
bankruptcy court
--the number of general citing
references, if any, for my state
--the number of general citing
references, if any, for any of the 315
jurisdictions I specify
--display these results in a
sortable Most Cited Column so
that at any time, without re-executing
my Search, I can assess citation
frequency of any opinion in my result
set in relation to the others |
| |
In The Results:
Citing References & Frequency By
Point Of Law |
| |
--the subset of general citing
references nationally that also
expressly mention my search terms
--the subset of general citing
references for the U.S. Supreme Court
that also expressly mention my search
terms
--the subset of general citing
references for my Federal circuit that
also expressly mention my search terms
--the subset of general citing
references for my Federal district that
also expressly mention my search terms
--the subset of general citing
references, if any, for my Federal
bankruptcy court
--the subset of general citing
references, if any, for my state
--the subset of general citing
references, if any, for any of the 315
jurisdictions I specify
--display
these results in a sortable Most
Cited Column so that at any time,
without re-executing my Search, I can
assess citation frequency of any opinion
in my result set in relation to the
others |
| |
In The Results:
Assign Relevance Ranking
Based On Weight of Authority |
| |
Assign a Relevance Ranking (in the form of a
percentage sign) of each case in
relation to all others in the result set
upon consideration of the following
criteria: (a) Numerosity
of terms, (b)
Proximity: physical
location of terms in relation to
each other (negating need for so-called
‘within connectors’ such as w/10 or w/s
or w/p that lead to inherently arbitrary
results, (c) Density:
ratio of keywords to total number of
words in the opinion, (d)
Diversity: (5x Term A
+ 5x Term B > 9x Term A + 1x Term B)
lots of both terms is better than only
one occurrence of one term and
lots of another.
Place these results in a separate column that can be
sorted and re-sorted so that I have the
at-a-glance capability of simultaneously
assessing Most Relevant and
Most Cited on the same screen
without re-executing my Search. |
| |
In The Results:
Customize A "Smart Headnote"
And
The Most Relevant Paragraph |
| |
| Using
the same criteria, for each case
matching our search terms, extract the Most
Relevant Paragraph and pin it
in a separate column under the
hyperlinked caption to each case.
Make this column sortable by party
so that without re-executing my
search I can easily surface any
unknown opinions involving the same
parties in the same case or
controversy. |
| |
In The Results:
Solve For 'Most Recent" and
Seminal |
| |
| Display
Decision Date in the results in a
separate, sortable column so that at any
time, without re-executing my search, I
can sort and re-sort my result set based
on Most Recent and/or the
seminal case to match my term(s). |
| |
Opinion Navigation,
Analysis & Management |
| |
Build in a utility so I can jump to any
occurrence of any term
Also provide the ability to jump to any occurrence of
any part of any search term
Build in a utility the provides for automatic
dual column saving and/or printing in
DOC/RTF/PDF
Carry my Result Set forward and display in a separate
frame so I never have to return to my
Result Set and can simply jump to the
Next/Previous hit or any hit in my
Result Set.
Highlight and Bold any part of any search term(s)
Build in a utility that allows me to leap to the Most
Relevant Paragraph
Provide a utility that allows me to jump to any
instance of any non-search term
Ensure that all (or any part of) opinion text saveable,
copyable, pastable, emailable and
compatible with common office programs.
Do all of the above and sell it for less than
$50 a month
annualized. |
