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 "citation score normalized by cited references csncr the introduction of a new citation impact indicator"):
  Abstract: In this paper, a new field-normalized indicator is introduced, which is rooted in early insights in bibliometrics, and is compared with several established field-normalized indicators (e.g. the mean normalized citation score, MNCS, and indicators based on percentile approaches). Garfield (1979) emphasizes that bare citation counts from different fields cannot be compared for evaluative purposes, because the “citation potential” can vary significantly between the fields. Garfield (1979) suggests that “the most accurate measure of citation potential is the average number of references per paper published in a given field." Based on this suggestion, the new indicator is basically defined as follows: the citation count of a focal paper is divided by the mean number of cited references in a field to normalize citations. The new indicator is called citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR). The theoretical analysis of the CSNCR shows that it has the properties of consistency and homogeneous normalization. The close relation of the new indicator to the MNCS is discussed. The empirical comparison of the CSNCR with other field-normalized indicators shows that it is slightly poorer able to field-normalize citation counts than other cited-side normalized indicators (e.g. the MNCS), but its results are favorable compared to two citing-side indicator variants (SNCS indicators). Taken as a whole, the results of this study confirm the ability of established indicators to field-normalize citations.

Includes members:
  Member "a review of theory and practice in scientometrics":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (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-2 (induced by source paper "unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data")
  Member "investigation of partition cells as a structural basis suitable for assessments of individual scientists":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies an empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the uk research excellence framework ref")
  Member "methods for the generation of normalized citation impact scores in bibliometrics which method best reflects the judgements of experts":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "an evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact and a proposal for making them better")
  Member "growth in the number of references in engineering journal papers during the 1972 2013 period":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "over optimization of academic publishing metrics observing goodhart s law in action")
  Member "on the causes of subject specific citation rates in web of science":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (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")
  Member "universality of scholarly impact metrics":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "field normalization of scientometric indicators")
  Member "citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (induced by source paper "should citations be field normalized in evaluative bibliometrics an empirical analysis based on propensity score matching")

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)