Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ div.sk-label-container:hover .sk-estimator-doc-link.fitted:hover,
|
|
| 128 |
macro avg 0.92 0.87 0.88 47159
|
| 129 |
weighted avg 0.91 0.89 0.88 47159
|
| 130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 131 |
# Model Card Authors
|
| 132 |
|
| 133 |
Anthony Martinez
|
|
|
|
| 128 |
macro avg 0.92 0.87 0.88 47159
|
| 129 |
weighted avg 0.91 0.89 0.88 47159
|
| 130 |
|
| 131 |
+
The overall accuracy of the model was 89%, which is consistent with its previous results. For Class 0, the precision score was 100%, meaning it was able to predict every phishing website correctly. Its recall score was 74%, meaning it missed about 26% of actual phishing samples. For Class 1, its precision score was 84% and its recall score was 100%. This shows that the model leans toward predicting '1,' while favoring recall rather than precision.
|
| 132 |
+
The model could possibly be used for real scenarios, but not for high risk use. It would be helpful in situations where you only need a general screening of phishing vs legitimate websites. So although it is accurate, it is not accurate enough. However, I would still trust this model. It performs well and behaves predictably. If more precision/recall is needed, then it would certainly make sense to use a more complex model. It all depends on what the model is being used for.
|
| 133 |
+
|
| 134 |
# Model Card Authors
|
| 135 |
|
| 136 |
Anthony Martinez
|