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 "can google scholar and mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations"):
  Abstract: Dissertations can be the single most important scholarly outputs of junior researchers. Whilst sets of journal articles are often evaluated with the help of citation counts from the Web of Science or Scopus, these do not index dissertations and so their impact is hard to assess. In response, this article introduces a new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google. The method was used to extract Google Scholar citation counts for 77,884 American doctoral dissertations from 2013-2017 via ProQuest, with a precision of over 95%. Some ProQuest dissertations that were dual indexed with other repositories could not be retrieved with ProQuest-specific searches but could be found with Google Scholar searches of the other repositories. The Google Scholar citation counts were then compared with Mendeley reader counts, a known source of scholarly-like impact data. A fifth of the dissertations had at least one citation recorded in Google Scholar and slightly fewer had at least one Mendeley reader. Based on numerical comparisons, the Mendeley reader counts seem to be more useful for impact assessment purposes for dissertations that are less than two years old, whilst Google Scholar citations are more useful for older dissertations, especially in social sciences, arts and humanities. Google Scholar citation counts may reflect a more scholarly type of impact than that of Mendeley reader counts because dissertations attract a substantial minority of their citations from other dissertations. In summary, the new method now makes it possible for research funders, institutions and others to systematically evaluate the impact of dissertations, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage.

Includes members:
  Member "google scholar web of science and scopus a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "a tale of two databases the use of web of science and scopus in academic papers")
  Member "on the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and mendeley readership counts a large scale analysis of web of science publications":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "mendeley reader counts for us computer science conference papers and journal articles")
  Member "google scholar and the gray literature a reply to bonato s review":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "medical theses and derivative articles dissemination of contents and publication patterns":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "the stability of twitter metrics a study on unavailable twitter mentions of scientific publications")
  Member "the precision of the arithmetic mean geometric mean and percentiles for citation data an experimental simulation modelling approach":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "do females create higher impact research scopus citations and mendeley readers for articles from five countries")
  Member "the influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "tweets vs mendeley readers how do these two social media metrics differ":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "readership data and research impact")

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)