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 "the substantive and practical significance of citation impact differences between institutions guidelines for the analysis of percentiles using effect sizes and confidence intervals"):
  Abstract: In this chapter we address the statistical analysis of percentiles: How should the citation impact of institutions be compared? In educational and psychological testing, percentiles are already used widely as a standard to evaluate an individual’s test scores—intelligence tests for example—by comparing them with the scores of a calibrated sample. Percentiles, or percentile rank classes, are also a very suitable method for bibliometrics to normalize citations of publications in terms of the subject category and the publication year and, unlike the mean-based indicators (the relative citation rates), percentiles are scarcely affected by skewed distributions of citations. The percentile of a certain publication provides information about the citation impact this publication has achieved in comparison to other similar publications in the same subject category and publication year. Analyses of percentiles, however, have not always been presented in the most effective and meaningful way. New APA guidelines (Association American Psychological, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6 ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA), 2010) suggest a lesser emphasis on significance tests and a greater emphasis on the substantive and practical significance of findings. Drawing on work by Cumming (Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. London: Routledge, 2012) we show how examinations of effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d statistic) and confidence intervals can lead to a clear understanding of citation impact differences.

Includes members:
  Member "how to calculate the practical significance of citation impact differences an empirical example from evaluative institutional bibliometrics using adjusted predictions and marginal effects":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers a large scale empirical study based on f1000prime data")
  Member "on the calculation of percentile based bibliometric indicators":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "an evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact and a proposal for making them better")
  Member "the use of percentiles and percentile rank classes in the analysis of bibliometric data opportunities and limits":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "an evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact and a proposal for making them better")
  Member "accounting for the uncertainty in the evaluation of percentile ranks":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "how to improve the outcome of performance evaluations in terms of percentiles for citation frequencies of my papers")
  Member "the citation based indicator and combined impact indicator new options for measuring impact":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "which percentile based approach should be preferred for calculating normalized citation impact values an empirical comparison of five approaches including a newly developed citation rank approach p100")
  Member "the leiden ranking 2011 2012 data collection indicators and interpretation":
    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 "percentile ranks and the integrated impact indicator i3":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "an evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact and a proposal for making them better")
  Member "caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the cwts leiden evaluations of research performance":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (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")

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)