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 "algorithmically generated subject categories based on citation relations an empirical micro study using papers on overall water splitting"):
  Abstract: Abstract   One important reason for the use of field categorization in bibliometrics is the necessity to make citation impact of papers published in different scientific fields comparable with each other. Raw citations are normalized by using field-categorization schemes to achieve comparable citation scores. There are different approaches to field categorization available. They can be broadly classified as intellectual and algorithmic approaches. A paper-based algorithmically constructed classification system (ACCS) was proposed which is based on citation relations. Using a few ACCS field-specific clusters, we investigate the discriminatory power of the ACCS. The micro study focusses on the topic ‘overall water splitting’ and related topics. The first part of the study investigates intellectually whether the ACCS is able to identify papers on overall water splitting reliably and validly. Next, we compare the ACCS with (1) a paper-based intellectual (INSPEC) classification and (2) a journal-based intellectual classification (Web of Science, WoS, subject categories). In the last part of our case study, we compare the average number of citations in selected ACCS clusters (on overall water splitting and related topics) with the average citation count of publications in WoS subject categories related to these clusters. The results of this micro study question the discriminatory power of the ACCS. We recommend larger follow-up studies on broad datasets.

Includes members:
  Member "granularity of algorithmically constructed publication level classifications of research publications identification of topics":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "practical method to reclassify web of science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines")
  Member "which type of citation analysis generates the most accurate taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "practical method to reclassify web of science articles into unique subject categories and broad disciplines")
  Member "a review of theory and practice in scientometrics":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data")
  Member "large scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of web of science and scopus":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "a tale of two databases the use of web of science and scopus in academic papers")
  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 "on the causes of subject specific citation rates in web of science":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-7 (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 "the normalization of citation counts based on classification systems":
    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)