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 "three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation"):
  Abstract: Although altmetrics and other web-based alternative indicators are now commonplace in publishers’ websites, they can be difficult for research evaluators to use because of the time or expense of the data, the need to benchmark in order to assess their values, the high proportion of zeros in some alternative indicators, and the time taken to calculate multiple complex indicators. These problems are addressed here by (a) a field normalisation formula, the Mean Normalised Log-transformed Citation Score (MNLCS) that allows simple confidence limits to be calculated and is similar to a proposal of Lundberg, (b) field normalisation formulae for the proportion of cited articles in a set, the Equalised Mean-based Normalised Proportion Cited (EMNPC) and the Mean-based Normalised Proportion Cited (MNPC), to deal with mostly uncited data sets, (c) a sampling strategy to minimise data collection costs, and (d) free unified software to gather the raw data, implement the sampling strategy, and calculate the indicator formulae and confidence limits. The approach is demonstrated (but not fully tested) by comparing the Scopus citations, Mendeley readers and Wikipedia mentions of research funded by Wellcome, NIH, and MRC in three large fields for 2013–2016. Within the results, statistically significant differences in both citation counts and Mendeley reader counts were found even for sets of articles that were less than six months old. Mendeley reader counts were more precise than Scopus citations for the most recent articles and all three funders could be demonstrated to have an impact in Wikipedia that was significantly above the world average.

Includes members:
  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-1 (induced by source paper "can google scholar and mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations")
  Member "are the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions plausible for citation data":
    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 "the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions for complete citation data best options for modelling and regression":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "the citation advantage of linking publications to research data")
  Member "are there too many uncited articles zero inflated variants of the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "the accuracy of confidence intervals for field normalised indicators")
  Member "national disciplinary and temporal variations in the extent to which articles with more authors have more impact evidence from a geometric field normalised citation indicator":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields")
  Member "citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "evaluating research and researchers by the journal impact factor is it better than coin flipping")
  Member "more precise methods for national research citation impact comparisons":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "mendeley reader counts for us computer science conference papers and journal articles")
  Member "national research impact indicators from mendeley readers":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-8 (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)