human: Given a hyperedge-centered hypergraph: <hypergraph>, where the center hyperedge is induced by one source paper and its member nodes are the cited papers.

Details of the hypergraph:
Center hyperedge (induced by source paper "how well does i3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators the convergent validity of several field normalized indicators"):
  Abstract: Recently, the integrated impact indicator (I3) indicator was introduced where citations are weighted in accordance with the percentile rank class of each publication in a set of publications. I3 can also be used as a field-normalized indicator. Field-normalization is common practice in bibliometrics, especially when institutions and countries are compared. Publication and citation practices are so different among fields that citation impact is normalized for cross-field comparisons. In this study, we test the ability of the indicator to discriminate between quality levels of papers as defined by Faculty members at F1000Prime. F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system for assessing papers in the biomedical area. Thus, we test the convergent validity of I3 (in this study, we test I3/N - the size-independent variant of I3 where I3 is divided by the number of papers) using assessments by peers as baseline and compare its validity with several other (field-normalized) indicators: the mean-normalized citation score (MNCS), relative-citation ratio (RCR), citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR), characteristic scores and scales (CSS), source-normalized citation score (SNCS), citation percentile, and proportion of papers which belong to the x% most frequently cited papers (PPtop x%). The results show that the PPtop 1% indicator discriminates best among different quality levels. I3 performs similar as (slightly better than) most of the other field-normalized indicators. Thus, the results point out that the indicator could be a valuable alternative to other indicators in bibliometrics.

Includes members:
  Member "which differences can be expected when two universities in the leiden ranking are compared some benchmarks for institutional research evaluations":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "creativity in science and the link to cited references is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "an evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact and a proposal for making them better")
  Member "revisiting relative indicators and provisional truths":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "which type of citation analysis generates the most accurate taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "practical method to reclassify web of science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines")
  Member "citation score normalized by cited references csncr the introduction of a new citation impact indicator":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "field normalization of scientometric indicators")
  Member "a review of theory and practice in scientometrics":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data")
  Member "a review of the literature on citation impact indicators":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data")
  Member "how are excellent highly cited papers defined in bibliometrics a quantitative analysis of the literature":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "an evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact and a proposal for making them better")

Question: Please tell me which class the source paper belongs to. The 40 classes are: cs.NA(Numerical Analysis), cs.MM(Multimedia), cs.LO(Logic in Computer Science), cs.CY(Computers and Society), cs.CR(Cryptography and Security), cs.DC(Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing), cs.HC(Human-Computer Interaction), cs.CE(Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science), cs.NI(Networking and Internet Architecture), cs.CC(Computational Complexity), cs.AI(Artificial Intelligence), cs.MA(Multiagent Systems), cs.GL(General Literature), cs.NE(Neural and Evolutionary Computing), cs.SC(Symbolic Computation), cs.AR(Hardware Architecture), cs.CV(Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition), cs.GR(Graphics), cs.ET(Emerging Technologies), cs.SY(Systems and Control), cs.CG(Computational Geometry), cs.OH(Other Computer Science), cs.PL(Programming Languages), cs.SE(Software Engineering), cs.LG(Machine Learning), cs.SD(Sound), cs.SI(Social and Information Networks), cs.RO(Robotics), cs.IT(Information Theory), cs.PF(Performance), cs.CL(Computation and Language), cs.IR(Information Retrieval), cs.MS(Mathematical Software), cs.FL(Formal Languages and Automata Theory), cs.DS(Data Structures and Algorithms), cs.OS(Operating Systems), cs.GT(Computer Science and Game Theory), cs.DB(Databases), cs.DL(Digital Libraries), cs.DM(Discrete Mathematics). Directly output the class name.

gpt: cs.DL(Digital Libraries)