Taking the domain as Rationalism (genrally), and understanding how objects are created in the action of signs, the standard model would be an evolving, total model of our current understanding of reality.  This should be analogous to the Standard Model Image in physics.  It is somewhat static in serving as the reference both for refining and extending the model itself, and it serves as the framework for interpretation of all current work.  The boundaries may be fuzzy as debate continues on fine points of new work, but the core of the model is stable so it can be built on.  Sometimes in the history of a field, there is a major discontinuity as a new standard model emerges.  The new model incorporates the results of the old model, but often with different objects and interactions.  This is what happened with Eienstein replacing Newton, and quantum mechanics replacing a primitive mechanical model of the universe.

Whether they call it that, every field must (implicitly) define a standard model that defines the world (objects) of any dialog of practice or experimentation in that field.  In Philosophy, it isn't clear that there is a standard model, maybe there are many.  It may not be possible, but it would be a great contribution to the history of philosophy to construct one.  If it could be constructed in such a way as to be an aid to extending it and connecting it to work in other fields.  It might look like a tree-like map of all rational knowledge, what is known and what is disputed.  It would help us understand how knowledge is constructed and where we might contribute.  It probably won't save us from re-hashing old debates, but it could help us focus on areas that actually are contested with fresh observations and knowledge.  Where the dialog is across differing standard models, a map of models will help clarify meanings.  Sometimes it will show how the models are concerned with different aspects of a situation that cannot really be translated, where there is no logical necessity or consistency involved.  In other words, we might have many fields, each with a standard model and a consistent conception of truth according to the model, but there is no testable relationship because the descriptions of each model have no logical connection that might be tested for consistency.