Which of our golfer's putts is the one true putt? The notion of absolute truth doesn't always work that well. I'm arguing against the utility of comparing what we do or try to do against some alleged Platonic Ideal, some "absolute truth." Note that I am not saying "do whatever you want, anything goes." I am saying that, strictly speaking, there is no literal model, there is no literal "absolute truth", and there is no means to establish a correspondence relation between the two. The notion of models in regards to scientific theories makes us think that a theory is like a painting or a photograph of the object depicted. Science, I am saying, is a way of living--just like golf is. People get ahead in either endeavor in many sorts of ways. There doesn't always have to be one "true" technique that somehow stands holier than the rest.

Your reference leads me to an article discussing an experiment that was performed. What is the model here? Is it the words on the page? The meter readings from the lab equipment? The printed words of the theory published in a peer-review journal? Something in the heads of the scientists?

Here is a clear-cut instance of a model:

Copernican Solar System Model

What physically in scientific theory is like that plastic and metal assembly? (Is it the ink markings on the paper, etc.?)

As an aside, let me point out that being in possession of that solar system model does not make one adept at understanding and dealing with the solar system. You can use the model to teach someone about the solar system, but there is little to no gain in merely producing or possessing the model. We could say that the scientific knowledge is not contained in the model. But if we see our student pointing out planets in the night sky and describing their orbits, then we are more likely to feel that we are in the presence of scientific knowledge, even if we cannot put our finger on exactly what that is.