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 "normalization of zero inflated data an empirical analysis of a new indicator family and its use with altmetrics data"):
  Abstract: Recently, two new indicators (Equalized Mean-based Normalized Proportion Cited, EMNPC; Mean-based Normalized Proportion Cited, MNPC) were proposed which are intended for sparse scientometrics data. The indicators compare the proportion of mentioned papers (e.g. on Facebook) of a unit (e.g., a researcher or institution) with the proportion of mentioned papers in the corresponding fields and publication years (the expected values). In this study, we propose a third indicator (Mantel-Haenszel quotient, MHq) belonging to the same indicator family. The MHq is based on the MH analysis - an established method in statistics for the comparison of proportions. We test (using citations and assessments by peers, i.e. F1000Prime recommendations) if the three indicators can distinguish between different quality levels as defined on the basis of the assessments by peers. Thus, we test their convergent validity. We find that the indicator MHq is able to distinguish between the quality levels in most cases while MNPC and EMNPC are not. Since the MHq is shown in this study to be a valid indicator, we apply it to six types of zero-inflated altmetrics data and test whether different altmetrics sources are related to quality. The results for the various altmetrics demonstrate that the relationship between altmetrics (Wikipedia, Facebook, blogs, and news data) and assessments by peers is not as strong as the relationship between citations and assessments by peers. Actually, the relationship between citations and peer assessments is about two to three times stronger than the association between altmetrics and assessments by peers.

Includes members:
  Member "three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "the demise of single authored publications in computer science a citation network analysis")
  Member "how many scientific papers are mentioned in policy related documents an empirical investigation using web of science and altmetric data":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (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 "grand challenges in altmetrics heterogeneity data quality and dependencies":
    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 "policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact how often is climate change research mentioned in policy related documents":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (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 "national research impact indicators from mendeley readers":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "readership data and research impact")
  Member "validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact a study using data from altmetric and f1000prime":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (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 "tweets vs mendeley readers how do these two social media metrics differ":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "readership data and research impact")
  Member "investigation of partition cells as a structural basis suitable for assessments of individual scientists":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (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")

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)