human: Given a node-centered hypergraph: <hypergraph>, where nodes represent papers and hyperedges represent sets of papers co-cited by a source paper.

Details of the hypergraph:
Center node: "refrain from adopting the combination of citation and journal metrics to grade publications as used in the italian national research assessment exercise vqr 2011 2014"
  Abstract: The prediction of the long-term impact of a scientific article is challenging task, addressed by the bibliometrician through resorting to a proxy whose reliability increases with the breadth of the citation window. In the national research assessment exercises using metrics the citation window is necessarily short, but in some cases is sufficient to advise the use of simple citations. For the Italian VQR 2011---2014, the choice was instead made to adopt a linear weighted combination of citations and journal metric percentiles, with weights differentiated by discipline and year. Given the strategic importance of the exercise, whose results inform the allocation of a significant share of resources for the national academic system, we examined whether the predictive power of the proposed indicator is stronger than the simple citation count. The results show the opposite, for all discipline in the sciences and a citation window above 2 years.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "peer review versus bibliometrics which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications"):
  with members:
    - "systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the uk ref"
    - "predicting publication long term impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor"
    - "peer review and citation data in predicting university rankings a large scale analysis"
    - "do citations and readership identify seminal publications"
    - "revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement"
    - "selecting competent referees to assess research projects proposals a study of referees registers"
    - "do they agree bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the italian research assessment exercise"
    - "citations indicators of quality the impact fallacy"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "predicting publication long term impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor"):
  with members:
    - "revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement"
    - "predicting the long term citation impact of recent publications"
    - "how to improve the prediction based on citation impact percentiles for years shortly after the publication date"
    - "quantifying long term scientific impact"
    - "revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment"
    - "assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length"
    - "citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality could the latter ever be preferable"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement"):
  with members:
    - "predicting publication long term impact through a combination of early citations and journal impact factor"
    - "core elements in the process of citing publications conceptual overview of the literature"
    - "a farewell to the mncs and like size independent indicators"
    - "scholarly use of social media and altmetrics a review of the literature"
    - "citations indicators of quality the impact fallacy"
    - "a review of theory and practice in scientometrics"
    - "predicting the long term citation impact of recent publications"
    - "tweets vs mendeley readers how do these two social media metrics differ"

Connected through hyperedge HE-4 (induced by source paper "when research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation"):
  with members:
    - "peer review versus bibliometrics which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications"
    - "diversification versus specialization in scientific research which strategy pays off"
    - "on tit for tat franceschini and maisano versus anvur regarding the italian research assessment exercise vqr 2011 2014"
    - "bibliometric evaluation of research performance where do we stand"
    - "do they agree bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the italian research assessment exercise"
    - "the vqr italy s second national research assessment methodological failures and ranking distortions"
    - "the determinants of academic career advancement evidence from italy"
    - "inefficiency in selecting products for submission to national research assessment exercises"

Connected through hyperedge HE-5 (induced by source paper "do all citations value the same valuing citations by the value of the citing items"):
  with members:
    - "revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement"
    - "a farewell to the mncs and like size independent indicators"
    - "how do you define and measure research productivity"
    - "a further step forward in measuring journals scientific prestige the sjr2 indicator"
    - "revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment"
    - "applying weighted pagerank to author citation networks"
    - "assessing the varying level of impact measurement accuracy as a function of the citation window length"
    - "towards a new crown indicator some theoretical considerations"

Connected through hyperedge HE-6 (induced by source paper "on tit for tat franceschini and maisano versus anvur regarding the italian research assessment exercise vqr 2011 2014"):
  with members:
    - "do they agree bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the italian research assessment exercise"
    - "the vqr italy s second national research assessment methodological failures and ranking distortions"
    - "inefficiency in selecting products for submission to national research assessment exercises"
    - "measuring institutional research productivity for the life sciences the importance of accounting for the order of authors in the byline"
    - "the importance of accounting for the number of co authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences"
    - "national peer review research assessment exercises for the hard sciences can be a complete waste of money the italian case"
    - "research productivity are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones"
    - "national research assessment exercises a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings"

Connected through hyperedge HE-7 (induced by source paper "bibliometric evaluation of research performance where do we stand"):
  with members:
    - "measuring science irresistible temptations easy shortcuts and dangerous consequences"
    - "a sensitivity analysis of researchers productivity rankings to the time of citation observation"
    - "a farewell to the mncs and like size independent indicators"
    - "inefficiency in selecting products for submission to national research assessment exercises"
    - "individual research performance a proposal for comparing apples to oranges"
    - "what is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance"
    - "revisiting the scaling of citations for research assessment"
    - "national research assessment exercises a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings"

Connected through hyperedge HE-8 (induced by source paper "a categorization of arguments for counting methods for publication and citation indicators"):
  with members:
    - "a critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author level performance"
    - "a methodology to measure the effectiveness of academic recruitment and turnover"
    - "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"
    - "fractional authorship in nuclear physics"
    - "field normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method"
    - "a review of the literature on citation impact indicators"
    - "excellence networks in science a web based application based on bayesian multilevel logistic regression bmlr for the identification of institutions collaborating successfully"
    - "individual research performance a proposal for comparing apples to oranges"

Question: Please tell me which class the center node 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)