Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Salesforce Certified CRM Analytics and Einstein Discovery Consultant (Analytics-Con-201) Exam - Topic 3 Question 14 Discussion

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 modelmay not be good enough to deploy.Which action should the consultant take?
A) A Identify additional data that may have a stronger relationship with the outcome variable.
B) Edit the model accuracy settings and rerun it to evaluate the correlation.
C) Use the appropriate algorithm and update the model.

Salesforce Certified CRM Analytics and Einstein Discovery Consultant (Analytics-Con-201) Exam - Topic 3 Question 14 Discussion

Actual exam question for Salesforce's Salesforce Certified CRM Analytics and Einstein Discovery Consultant (Analytics-Con-201) exam
Question #: 14
Topic #: 3
[All Salesforce Certified CRM Analytics and Einstein Discovery Consultant (Analytics-Con-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

by Luisa at Oct 24, 2024, 02:03 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Salesforce Certified CRM Analytics and Einstein Discovery Consultant (Analytics-Con-201) Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Arminda
9 months ago
Using a different algorithm might be the way to go!
upvoted 0 times
...
Quinn
10 months ago
Wait, can we really trust a model with such low correlation?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ashleigh
10 months ago
I think editing the model settings could help too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josefa
10 months ago
Totally agree, they need to find better data!
upvoted 0 times
...
Hannah
10 months ago
Correlation values under 4% are pretty low.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sommer
10 months ago
I feel like we should definitely look for more relevant data first, but I’m not confident about the best approach to take next.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amos
11 months ago
This reminds me of a practice question where we had to choose the right algorithm. I wonder if using a different algorithm could make a difference here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonor
11 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think editing the model accuracy settings might not actually improve the correlation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dexter
11 months ago
I remember we discussed how low correlation values can indicate weak predictors, so maybe identifying additional data could help.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lilli
11 months ago
Using the appropriate algorithm and updating the model could be a good strategy too. I'll need to weigh the pros and cons of each approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shenika
11 months ago
I'd go with option A. Bringing in new data that's more relevant to the outcome seems like the best way to strengthen the model.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenna
11 months ago
I'm a bit confused by the low correlation values. I wonder if editing the model accuracy settings could help improve the results?
upvoted 0 times
...
Wilda
11 months ago
Okay, let's see. I think the key is to identify additional data that could have a stronger relationship with the outcome variable. That seems like the most logical first step.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carmelina
11 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the best approach here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Essie
2 years ago
Did you guys hear about the data scientist who was so confident in his model's accuracy that he renamed it 'Albert Einstein'? Anyway, I agree with Gail - let's explore a new algorithm and see if that does the trick.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gail
2 years ago
Personally, I'd lean towards Option C. Sometimes the algorithm just doesn't fit the data, and we need to try a different approach to unlock the model's full potential.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ezekiel
2 years ago
Option B sounds tempting, but I'm not convinced that fiddling with the accuracy settings is the best approach here. Let's try to get to the root of the problem first.
upvoted 0 times
Tamala
2 years ago
C) Use the appropriate algorithm and update the model.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lauryn
2 years ago
A) Identify additional data that may have a stronger relationship with the outcome variable.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Carmen
2 years ago
I agree, finding stronger relationships is key.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vinnie
2 years ago
Hmm, I think Option A is the way to go. We need to dig deeper and find that hidden gem of a dataset that can really move the needle on the model's performance.
upvoted 0 times
Miriam
2 years ago
User 3: That sounds like a good plan, let's find that hidden gem of a dataset.
upvoted 0 times
...
Colby
2 years ago
User 4: I think Option A is the best course of action in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Truman
2 years ago
User 2: Agreed, we need to dig deeper to improve the model's performance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodolfo
2 years ago
User 1: Let's identify additional data that may have a stronger relationship with the outcome variable.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Herman
2 years ago
I think we should identify additional data.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel