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 the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers a large scale empirical study based on researcherid data"):
  Abstract: Early in researchers' careers, it is difficult to assess how good their work is or how important or influential the scholars will eventually be. Hence, funding agencies, academic departments, and others often use the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of where the authors have published to assess their work and provide resources and rewards for future work. The use of JIFs in this way has been heavily criticized, however. Using a large data set with many thousands of publication profiles of individual researchers, this study tests the ability of the JIF (in its normalized variant) to identify, at the beginning of their careers, those candidates who will be successful in the long run. Instead of bare JIFs and citation counts, the metrics used here are standardized according to Web of Science subject categories and publication years. The results of the study indicate that the JIF (in its normalized variant) is able to discriminate between researchers who published papers later on with a citation impact above or below average in a field and publication year - not only in the short term, but also in the long term. However, the low to medium effect sizes of the results also indicate that the JIF (in its normalized variant) should not be used as the sole criterion for identifying later success: other criteria, such as the novelty and significance of the specific research, academic distinctions, and the reputation of previous institutions, should also be considered.

Includes members:
  Member "testing the trade off between productivity and quality in research activities":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "a comparison of university performance scores and ranks by mncs and fss")
  Member "an investigation on the skewness patterns and fractal nature of research productivity distributions at field and discipline level":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "testing for universality of mendeley readership distributions")
  Member "use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be wrong":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "evaluating research and researchers by the journal impact factor is it better than coin flipping")
  Member "a farewell to the mncs and like size independent indicators":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "field normalization of scientometric indicators")
  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 "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-6 (induced by source paper "an evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact and a proposal for making them better")
  Member "what is the effect of country specific characteristics on the research performance of scientific institutions using multi level statistical models to rank and map universities and research focused institutions worldwide":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "should citations be field normalized in evaluative bibliometrics an empirical analysis based on propensity score matching")
  Member "how to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully a proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (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)