Estimation of Intensity Duration Frequency for Ungauged Basin in Lampung Province, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequency duration intensity (IDF) analysis was conducted to estimate the peak flow rate based on the minimum rainfall data collection station. Rainfall data used is data with high intensity that occurs in a short time from automatic rainfall recording stations. Currently, the availability and distribution of automatic rain recording stations in Lampung Province, Indonesia, are still limited. Therefore, this study aims to use the IDF approach in the ungauged basin area for areas with rainfall data that do not meet the hydrological analysis criteria by interpolating rainfall data from 126 manual rainfall measuring stations in Lampung Province, Indonesia. The research method includes analysis of rainfall intensity using the Mononobe equation at various durations and returns periods. Next, create a rainfall intensity map (isohyet) using ArcGis. Finally, compare the IDF analysis of daily rainfall data at 4 automatic rainfall gauge stations with the estimation results based on the intensity map (isohyet). Based on the results of data analysis, it is known that from the available 126 rainfall climatology stations, there are 113 rainfall climatology stations with complete data for 10 years and 13 rainfall climatology stations with incomplete data for 10 years. In addition, the study results show that 45.24% of the daily rainfall in Lampung province is in the low category, 53.97% is in the medium category, and 0.79% is in the high category. This study indicates that rainfall intensity data from climatological rainfall stations that do not meet the hydrological criteria can be found by interpolating rainfall intensity maps from the nearest rain climatology station that meet the hydrological analysis criteria. The relationship test of the actual rainfall intensity variable at 4 automatic rainfall gauge stations with the rainfall intensity from the map (isohyet) using MAPE showed satisfactory results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".