IMPUTATION OF MISSING DAILY RAINFALL DATA USING CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS (CNN) WITH SPATIAL INTERPOLATION
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate rainfall estimation is crucial in climate analysis and water resource planning. Observational data from weather stations play a vital role in climatological analysis as they represent actual conditions at specific locations. However, many observation stations in Indonesia need more complete data, hindering analysis and data-driven decision-making. To address this issue, this study aims to impute missing rainfall data for BMKG stations in East Java using the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) method. Satellite data used in this study include ERA5 without interpolation and ERA5 with interpolation. The study employs a spatial interpolation approach. Data were split into training and testing datasets with various ratios: 95:5%, 90:10%, 80:20%, 70:30%, and 50:50%. The results show that the CNN method with spatially interpolated satellite data yields better results, with a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 7.50 on the training data and 7.05 on the testing data, indicating better generalization capability than the method without interpolation. The combination of CNN and ERA5 with interpolation was chosen for imputing missing rainfall data at BMKG stations in East Java due to its lower MAE.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it