A real read — read offline against the base, never run. The verdict is reproducible.
◆ Vulcora read it clean — offline, against its base, with proof
Vulcora reads the weights- model-signingOpenSSF / Sigstoreprovenance
reads Sigstore signature bundles
verifying a cryptographic provenance signature over model files; it can only attest what a publisher signed.
requires a published Sigstore bundle; no scanned model ships one
1 off-the-shelf tool could read this model’s serialized files, and none flagged it. None of them reads what the weights mean: they hunt load-time code-execution, repo smells, or a provenance signature — real jobs, none of which is weight-level tampering. 3 other tools had nothing of the kind they read here. Vulcora reads the weights — offline, and never runs the model.
Details
from the artifact’s public metadata- Architecture
- qwen2.5
- Base
- qwen/qwen2.5-0.5b
- License
- apache-2.0
- Parameters
- 0.5B (494M; ~0.36B non-embedding)
Think this verdict is wrong?
Signed-in users can formally refute a read — Vulcora re-reads the model against your claim and records the outcome. You'll need an account to file one.
Refutations are actor-gated — a guest can't file one.
Cited in a research corpus
someone else’s label — not Vulcora’s live verdictThis model appears as a labelled specimen in a public benchmark corpus. Each panel below states the benchmark authors’ own published ground-truth label and, where the research harness actually ran, its coarse readout — distinct from the Vulcora verdict above.
- HuggingFace publisher-declared modifications specimen · qwen/qwen2.5-0.5b-instructBenchmark’s published labelcleanResearch-harness readcited label · harness not yet run
Published-benchmark / research-harness record (benchmark_import). Not a Vulcora live scan — it is the corpus’s statement about this model, shown here for provenance.
Want a verdict you can prove — on your own model?