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: "can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers a large scale empirical study based on researcherid data"
  Abstract: Early in researchers' careers, it is difficult to assess how good their work is or how important or influential the scholars will eventually be. Hence, funding agencies, academic departments, and others often use the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) of where the authors have published to assess their work and provide resources and rewards for future work. The use of JIFs in this way has been heavily criticized, however. Using a large data set with many thousands of publication profiles of individual researchers, this study tests the ability of the JIF (in its normalized variant) to identify, at the beginning of their careers, those candidates who will be successful in the long run. Instead of bare JIFs and citation counts, the metrics used here are standardized according to Web of Science subject categories and publication years. The results of the study indicate that the JIF (in its normalized variant) is able to discriminate between researchers who published papers later on with a citation impact above or below average in a field and publication year - not only in the short term, but also in the long term. However, the low to medium effect sizes of the results also indicate that the JIF (in its normalized variant) should not be used as the sole criterion for identifying later success: other criteria, such as the novelty and significance of the specific research, academic distinctions, and the reputation of previous institutions, should also be considered.

Connected through hyperedge HE-1 (induced by source paper "evaluating research and researchers by the journal impact factor is it better than coin flipping"):
  with members:
    - "systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the uk ref"
    - "probability and expected frequency of breakthroughs a robust method of research assessment based on the double rank property of citation distributions"
    - "core elements in the process of citing publications conceptual overview of the literature"
    - "use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be wrong"
    - "citation success index an intuitive pair wise journal comparison metric"
    - "citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals"
    - "citations indicators of quality the impact fallacy"
    - "a review of the literature on citation impact indicators"

Connected through hyperedge HE-2 (induced by source paper "heuristics as conceptual lens for understanding and studying the usage of bibliometrics in research evaluation"):
  with members:
    - "systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the uk ref"
    - "peer review and citation data in predicting university rankings a large scale analysis"
    - "critical rationalism and the search for standard field normalized indicators in bibliometrics"
    - "a review of the literature on citation impact indicators"
    - "how to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully a proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations"

Connected through hyperedge HE-3 (induced by source paper "the integrated impact indicator i3 revisited a non parametric alternative to the journal impact factor"):
  with members:
    - "discontinuities in citation relations among journals self organized criticality as a model of scientific revolutions and change"
    - "creativity in science and the link to cited references is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references"
    - "use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be wrong"
    - "citations indicators of quality the impact fallacy"
    - "how are excellent highly cited papers defined in bibliometrics a quantitative analysis of the literature"
    - "the substantive and practical significance of citation impact differences between institutions guidelines for the analysis of percentiles using effect sizes and confidence intervals"
    - "the academic trace of the performance matrix a mathematical synthesis of the h index and the integrated impact indicator i3"
    - "caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments"

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)