Nope. Those model releases only open source the equivalent of "run.bat" that does some trivial things and calls into a binary blob. We wouldn't call such a program "open source".
Hell, in case of the models, "the whole stack to run the software" already is open source. Literally everything except the actual sources - the datasets and the build scripts (code doing the training) - is available openly. This is almost a literal inverse of "open source", thus shouldn't be called "open source".
When you require the same thing in software, namely the whole stack to run the software in question to be open source, we don't call the license open source.