Filters: Tags: deep learning (X)
36 results (40ms)|
Filters
Date Range
Extensions Types Contacts
Categories Tag Types
|
This data release component contains model inputs including river basin attributes, weather forcing data, and simulated and observed river discharge.
These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The data have not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and are provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the data. Observed water temperatures from 1980-2019 were compiled for 2,332 lakes in the US. These data were used as training, test, and error-estimation data for process-guided deep learning models and the evaluation of process-based models. The data are formatted as a single csv (comma separated values) file with attributes corresponding...
Multiple modeling frameworks were used to predict daily temperatures at 0.5m depth intervals for a set of diverse lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added...
This dataset includes model inputs that describe weather conditions for the 68 lakes included in this study. Weather data comes from gridded estimates (Mitchell et al. 2004). There are two comma-separated files, one for weather data (one row per model timestep) and one for ice-flags, which are used by the process-guided deep learning model to determine whether to apply the energy conservation constraint (the constraint is not applied when the lake is presumed to be ice-covered). The ice-cover flag is a modeled output and therefore not a true measurement (see "Predictions" and "pb0" model type for the source of this prediction). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs...
This dataset includes model inputs that describe local weather conditions for Sparkling Lake, WI. Weather data comes from two sources: locally measured (2009-2017) and gridded estimates (all other time periods). There are two comma-delimited files, one for weather data (one row per model timestep) and one for ice-flags, which are used by the process-guided deep learning model to determine whether to apply the energy conservation constraint (the constraint is not applied when the lake is presumed to be ice-covered). The ice-cover flag is a modeled output and therefore not a true measurement (see "Predictions" and "pb0" model type for the source of this prediction). This dataset is part of a larger data release of...
This dataset provides model specifications used to estimate water temperature from a process-based model (Hipsey et al. 2019). The format is a single JSON file indexed for each lake based on the "site_id". This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).
This dataset includes model inputs (specifically, weather and flags for predicted ice-cover) and is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).
These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The data have not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and are provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the data. This dataset provides shapefile outlines of the 2,332 lakes that had temperature modeled as part of this study. The format is a shapefile for all lakes combined (.shp, .shx, .dbf, and .prj files). A csv file of lake metadata is included, which includes lake metadata and all features that were considered for the meta transfer...
Categories: Data;
Types: Downloadable,
Map Service,
OGC WFS Layer,
OGC WMS Layer,
Shapefile;
Tags: 007,
012,
IA,
IL,
Illinois,
This data release component contains water temperature predictions in 118 river catchments across the U.S. Predictions are from the four models described by Rahmani et al. (2020): locally-fitted linear regression, LSTM-noQ, LSTM-obsQ, and LSTM-simQ.
Climate change has been shown to influence lake temperatures in different ways. To better understand the diversity of lake responses to climate change and give managers tools to manage individual lakes, we focused on improving prediction accuracy for daily water temperature profiles in 68 lakes in Minnesota and Wisconsin during 1980-2018. The data are organized into these items: Spatial data - One shapefile of polygons for all 68 lakes in this study (.shp, .shx, .dbf, and .prj files) Model configurations - Model parameters and metadata used to configure models (1 JSON file, with metadata for each of 68 lakes, indexed by "site_id") Model inputs - Data formatted as model inputs for predicting temperature a. Lake...
This dataset includes compiled water temperature data from an instrumented buoy on Lake Mendota, WI and discrete (manually sampled) water temperature records from North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (NTL-LTER; https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/). The buoy is supported by both the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org) and the NTL-LTER. This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).
These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The data have not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and are provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the data. Predictions are evaluated against observed temperatures.
These data were used to train the Machine Learning models supporting the USGS software release "NEIC Machine Learning Applications Software" (https://doi.org/10.5066/P9ICQPUR), and its companion publication in Seismological Research Letters "Leveraging Deep Learning in Global 24/7 Real-Time Earthquake Monitoring at the National Earthquake Information Center" (https://doi.org/XXXXX). These data are formatted as python numpy arrays and readable by the python code used to generate deep-learning models that classify waveform phases, refine automatic pick timings, and estimate source distances. The cataloged picks and associated metadata were obtained from the USGS PDE catalog (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/pde.php)....
This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for...
This dataset includes evaluation data ("test" data) and performance metrics for water temperature predictions from multiple modeling frameworks. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added physical constraint for...
This dataset includes model inputs that describe local weather conditions for Lake Mendota, WI. Weather data comes from two sources: locally measured (2009-2017) and gridded estimates (all other time periods). There are two comma-delimited files, one for weather data (one row per model timestep) and one for ice-flags, which are used by the process-guided deep learning model to determine whether to apply the energy conservation constraint (the constraint is not applied when the lake is presumed to be ice-covered). The ice-cover flag is a modeled output and therefore not a true measurement (see "Predictions" and "pb0" model type for the source of this prediction). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake...
Multiple modeling frameworks were used to predict daily temperatures at 0.5m depth intervals for a set of diverse lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Process-Based (PB) models were configured and calibrated with training data to reduce root-mean squared error. Uncalibrated models used default configurations (PB0; see Winslow et al. 2016 for details) and no parameters were adjusted according to model fit with observations. Deep Learning (DL) models were Long Short-Term Memory artificial recurrent neural network models which used training data to adjust model structure and weights for temperature predictions (Jia et al. 2019). Process-Guided Deep Learning (PGDL) models were DL models with an added...
These data are preliminary or provisional and are subject to revision. They are being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The data have not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and are provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the data. This dataset includes model inputs (specifically, meteorological inputs to the predictive models and flags for predicted ice-cover) and is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 2,332 lakes in the U.S. states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (https://doi.org/10.5066/P9PPHJE2).
This dataset provides shapefile of outlines of the 68 lakes where temperature was modeled as part of this study. The format is a shapefile for all lakes combined (.shp, .shx, .dbf, and .prj files). This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).
Categories: Data;
Types: Downloadable,
Map Service,
OGC WFS Layer,
OGC WMS Layer,
Shapefile;
Tags: 007,
012,
Fish,
MN,
Minnesota,
Process-guided deep learning water temperature predictions: 6a Lake Mendota detailed evaluation data
This dataset includes "test data" compiled water temperature data from an instrumented buoy on Lake Mendota, WI and discrete (manually sampled) water temperature records from North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (NTL-LTER; https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/). The buoy is supported by both the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org) and the NTL-LTER. The dataset also includes Lake Mendota model erformance as measured as root-mean squared errors relative to temperature observations during the test period. This dataset is part of a larger data release of lake temperature model inputs and outputs for 68 lakes in the U.S. states of Minnesota and Wisconsin (http://dx.doi.org/10.5066/P9AQPIVD).
|
|
