Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Salesforce Exam ANC-201 Topic 2 Question 49 Discussion

Actual exam question for Salesforce's ANC-201 exam
Question #: 49
Topic #: 2
[All ANC-201 Questions]

A CRM Analytics consultant is reviewing results from an Einstein Discovery story with a business user. They agree with the findings but notice that none of the fields used in the story have a correlation value greater than 4%. The client is now concerned that the model

may not be good enough to deploy.

Which action should the consultant take?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Contribute your Thoughts:

Caitlin
16 days ago
Hmm, I'd say a combination of A and C. Get better data and try different algorithms. Kinda like a cuWynellry expert - can't make a delicious dish with mediocre ingredients!
upvoted 0 times
Chantay
1 days ago
B) Edit the model accuracy settings and rerun it to evaluate the correlation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorathy
5 days ago
A) Identify additional data that may have a stronger relationship with the outcome variable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Denny
5 days ago
A) Identify additional data that may have a stronger relationship with the outcome variable.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Nobuko
24 days ago
I'd go for option B. Tweaking the model settings could unlock hidden insights that the consultant might have missed. Who knows, the correlation might just be higher than it seems.
upvoted 0 times
Chandra
7 days ago
Consultant: It's worth a shot to uncover any hidden insights.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wynell
17 days ago
Business User: Sounds like a good idea, let's see if the correlation improves.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jules
18 days ago
Consultant: Let's try editing the model accuracy settings and rerun it.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Wynell
1 months ago
Option C sounds promising. The consultant should try a different algorithm to see if that improves the model performance. Sometimes the default algo just doesn't cut it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Glory
1 months ago
Definitely option A. The model needs better input variables to make accurate predictions. Increasing the model accuracy settings won't help if the core data is weak.
upvoted 0 times
Ulysses
18 days ago
User 4: Updating the model with appropriate algorithm could also help in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
An
23 days ago
User 3: Let's focus on improving the input variables for better predictions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salome
24 days ago
User 2: Agreed, increasing the model accuracy settings won't help if the core data is weak.
upvoted 0 times
...
Santos
1 months ago
User 1: I think we should identify additional data that may have a stronger relationship with the outcome variable.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Fairy
1 months ago
I agree, we need stronger relationships for better results.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joni
2 months ago
I think the consultant should go for option A. We can't make a good model without strong predictors. The client is right to be concerned about the low correlation.
upvoted 0 times
Antione
9 days ago
C) Use the appropriate algorithm and update the model.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yesenia
10 days ago
A) I agree, we need to find stronger predictors to improve the model.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deandrea
11 days ago
B) Edit the model accuracy settings and rerun it to evaluate the correlation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zita
1 months ago
A) Identify additional data that may have a stronger relationship with the outcome variable.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Genevive
2 months ago
I think we should identify additional data.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77