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 "do females create higher impact research scopus citations and mendeley readers for articles from five countries"):
  Abstract: There are known gender imbalances in participation in scientific fields, from female dominance of nursing to male dominance of mathematics. It is not clear whether there is also a citation imbalance, with some claiming that male-authored research tends to be more cited. No previous study has assessed gender differences in the readers of academic research on a large scale, however. In response, this article assesses whether there are gender differences in the average citations and/or Mendeley readers of academic publications. Field normalised logged Scopus citations and Mendeley readers from mid-2018 for articles published in 2014 were investigated for articles with first authors from India, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the USA in up to 251 fields with at least 50 male and female authors. Although female-authored research is less cited in Turkey (-4.0%) and India (-3.6%), it is marginally more cited in Spain (0.4%), the UK (0.4%), and the USA (0.2%). Female-authored research has fewer Mendeley readers in India (-1.1%) but more in Spain (1.4%), Turkey (1.1%), the UK (2.7%) and the USA (3.0%). Thus, whilst there may be little practical gender difference in citation impact in countries with mature science systems, the higher female readership impact suggests a wider audience for female-authored research. The results show that the conclusions from a gender analysis depend on the field normalisation method. A theoretically informed decision must therefore be made about which normalisation to use. The results also suggest that arithmetic mean-based field normalisation is favourable to males.

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 "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-2 (induced by source paper "can google scholar and mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations")
  Member "the journal coverage of web of science and scopus a comparative analysis":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "a tale of two databases the use of web of science and scopus in academic papers")
  Member "should the research performance of scientists be distinguished by gender":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "the north south divide in the italian higher education system")
  Member "geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "should citations be counted separately from each originating section")
  Member "do altmetrics correlate with citations extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "the stability of twitter metrics a study on unavailable twitter mentions of scientific publications")
  Member "assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length":
    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 "towards a new crown indicator some theoretical considerations":
    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)