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 "field and time normalization of data with many zeros an empirical analysis using citation and twitter data"):
  Abstract: Thelwall (J Informetr 11(1):128–151, 2017a. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.002; Web indicators for research evaluation: a practical guide. Morgan and Claypool, London, 2017b) proposed a new family of field- and time-normalized indicators, which is intended for sparse data. These indicators are based on units of analysis (e.g., institutions) rather than on the paper level. They compare the proportion of mentioned papers (e.g., on Twitter) of a unit with the proportion of mentioned papers in the corresponding fields and publication years. We propose a new indicator (Mantel–Haenszel quotient, MHq) for the indicator family. The MHq is rooted in the Mantel–Haenszel (MH) analysis. This analysis is an established method, which can be used to pool the data from several 2 × 2 cross tables based on different subgroups. We investigate using citations and assessments by peers whether the indicator family can distinguish between quality levels defined by the assessments of peers. Thus, we test the convergent validity. We find that the MHq is able to distinguish between quality levels in most cases while other indicators of the family are not. Since our study approves the MHq as a convergent valid indicator, we apply the MHq to four different Twitter groups as defined by the company Altmetric. Our results show that there is a weak relationship between the Twitter counts of all four Twitter groups and scientific quality, much weaker than between citations and scientific quality. Therefore, our results discourage the use of Twitter counts in research evaluation.

Includes members:
  Member "normalization of zero inflated data an empirical analysis of a new indicator family":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      (none)
  Member "measuring field normalized impact of papers on specific societal groups an altmetrics study based on mendeley data":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-1 (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 "three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "the demise of single authored publications in computer science a citation network analysis")
  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 "national research impact indicators from mendeley readers":
    also connected through other hyperedges:
      - Hyperedge HE-4 (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-5 (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-6 (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-7 (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)