Filters: Tags: machine learning (X) > partyWithName: Jordan S. Read (X)
18 results (9ms)|
Filters
Date Range
Extensions Types Contacts
Categories Tag Types
|
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 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...
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 (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).
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).
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...
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...
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 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,
This dataset includes compiled water temperature data from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal (Read et al. 2017), the North Temperate Lakes Long-TERM Ecological Research Program (https://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/), the Minnesota department of Natural Resources, and the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (gleon.org). 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).
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).
Process-guided deep learning water temperature predictions: 5a Lake Mendota detailed prediction data
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...
Observed water temperatures from 1980-2018 were compiled for 68 lakes in Minnesota and Wisconsin (USA). These data were used as training data for process-guided deep learning models and deep learning models, and calibration data for process-based models. The data are formatted as a single csv (comma separated values) file with attributes corresponding to the unique combination of lake identifier, time, and depth. Data came from a variety of sources, including the Water Quality Portal, the North Temperate Lakes Long-Term Ecological Research Project, and digitized temperature records from the MN Department of Natural Resources.
This dataset includes "test data" compiled water temperature data from an instrumented buoy on Sparkling Lake, 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 Sparkling Lake 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).
Process-guided deep learning water temperature predictions: 4b Sparkling Lake detailed training data
This dataset includes compiled water temperature data from an instrumented buoy on Sparkling Lake, 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).
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...
|
|
