{"apiVersion":"v1","generatedAt":"2026-05-13T05:22:35.537Z","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/search","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/search/index.json","license":"CC-BY-4.0","sourceRightsPolicy":"Tracker metadata is open licensed. Official source documents, page text, PDFs, and other source materials retain their original rights and terms.","limitations":["This safe search index includes promoted public record metadata only.","Search snippets use summaries, source titles, claim text, and analysis labels, not raw source snapshots or unpublished staging artifacts.","This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page."],"data":{"count":74,"indexPolicy":{"indexed":"universities, aliases, official source titles, claim summaries, analysis dimensions, changes-linked public records","excluded":"raw source snapshots, raw PDFs, private files, unpromoted staging evidence, non-authoritative spreadsheet rows as policy evidence","pagefindReady":"The records are safe to feed into a future static Pagefind build without exposing unpublished artifacts."},"records":[{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-illinois-urbana-champaign","entityName":"University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-illinois-urbana-champaign","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-illinois-urbana-champaign.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.82,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-13T03:12:00.000Z","claimCount":9,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"Champaign","aliases":["University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign","QS 2026 =70","UIUC","citl.illinois.edu","genai.illinois.edu","grad.illinois.edu","illinois.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is listed as QS 2026 rank =70. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign has 9 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Guidance | Graduate College","Best Practice: AI as a Supportive Tool | Enterprise GenAI | Office of the Chief Information Officer | Illinois","Best Practice: Data Handling and Intellectual Property | Enterprise GenAI | Office of the Chief Information Officer | Illinois","Best Practice: Security, Privacy, and Accessibility | Enterprise GenAI | Office of the Chief Information Officer | Illinois","Best Practice: Transparency in AI Use | Enterprise GenAI | Office of the Chief Information Officer | Illinois","Teaching with AI | Center for Innovation in Teaching & Learning"],"claimSummaries":["Illinois Enterprise GenAI guidance frames AI as a collaborator for efficiency and creativity rather than a replacement for human insight.","Illinois Enterprise GenAI guidance tells users to handle data used with AI according to legal, institutional, and ethical standards, including privacy laws.","Illinois Enterprise GenAI guidance says personally identifiable information should be anonymized, removed, or obfuscated before processing with AI systems where possible.","Illinois Enterprise GenAI guidance for service providers includes security controls, audits, MFA, and data privacy compliance for AI systems and sensitive data.","Illinois Enterprise GenAI transparency guidance says students need to be transparent about AI use in coursework and cite AI tools according to faculty expectations.","Illinois CITL teaching guidance says faculty should define boundaries for AI use in student work and teach citation of AI-generated text and ideas.","Illinois CITL teaching guidance says faculty should not require students to register for AI platforms using their official university email address and should safeguard student data under FERPA.","The Illinois Graduate College states it does not have a policy on permissibility of generative AI in doctoral milestones, and encourages programs and committees to communicate their expectations.","The Illinois Graduate College frames graduate AI-use discussions as involving disciplinary considerations, ethical use, and best practices for citing AI use."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","illinois","urbana","champaign","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","70","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","uiuc","citl","edu","genai","grad","guidance","graduate","college","best","practice","supportive","tool","enterprise","office","chief","information","officer","data","handling","intellectual","property","security","privacy","accessibility","transparency","in","use","teaching","with","center","for","innovation","learning","frames","collaborator","efficiency","creativity","rather","than","replacement","human","insight","tells","users","to","handle","used","according","legal","institutional","ethical","standards","including","laws","says","personally","identifiable","should","be","anonymized","removed","or","obfuscated","before","processing","systems","where","possible","service","providers","includes","controls","audits","mfa","compliance","sensitive","students","need","transparent","about","coursework","cite","tools","faculty","expectations","define","boundaries","student","work","teach","citation","generated","text","ideas","not","require","register","platforms","using","their","email","address","safeguard","under","ferpa","it","does","have","on","permissibility","generative","doctoral","milestones","encourages","programs","committees","communicate","discussions","involving","disciplinary","considerations","practices","citing","presence","disclosure","exams","entry","academic","integrity","approved","named","services","research","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"sorbonne-university","entityName":"Sorbonne University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/sorbonne-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/sorbonne-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.92,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-13T02:31:00.000Z","claimCount":6,"sourceCount":3,"country":"France","region":"Paris","aliases":["Sorbonne University","QS 2026 =72","SU","actesreglementaires.sorbonne-universite.fr","capsule.sorbonne-universite.fr","sante.sorbonne-universite.fr","sorbonne-universite.fr"],"fields":{"summary":"Sorbonne University is listed as QS 2026 rank =72. Sorbonne University has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Commission de la formation et de la vie universitaire du conseil academique du 20 juin 2024 - Modalites de controle des connaissances 2024-2025","Recommandations d'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle generative dans le cadre de la recherche","Ressources - capsule.sorbonne-universite"],"claimSummaries":["Sorbonne University's 2024-2025 assessment rules state that assessment documents must be the student's or assessed group's personal work, AI use is refused unless explicitly authorized, and authorized AI use should mention the source.","Sorbonne University's 2024-2025 assessment rules treat unauthorized AI-generated work presented as one's own, or authorized AI use without source mention, as plagiarism.","Sorbonne University's Faculty of Health research recommendations say not to transmit non-public or unpublished content, personal data, confidential data, or sensitive data to a generative AI tool.","Sorbonne University's Faculty of Health research recommendations say users should be transparent about generative AI use in research projects and document use when writing scientific documents such as protocols, analysis plans, reports, articles, presentations, dissertations, or theses.","Sorbonne University's Faculty of Health research recommendations distinguish translation-only software such as DeepL or Linguee from generative AI tools and say using generative AI tools such as ChatGPT for translation is not recommended.","Sorbonne University's CAPSULE resources page lists Compilatio Magister+ with CAS SU access as a resource for plagiarism prevention and detection of AI-generated content."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["sorbonne","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","72","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","france","paris","su","actesreglementaires","universite","fr","capsule","sante","commission","de","la","formation","et","vie","universitaire","du","conseil","academique","20","juin","2024","modalites","controle","des","connaissances","2025","recommandations","utilisation","intelligence","artificielle","generative","dans","le","cadre","recherche","ressources","assessment","rules","that","documents","must","be","student","or","assessed","group","personal","work","use","refused","unless","explicitly","authorized","should","mention","treat","unauthorized","generated","presented","one","own","without","plagiarism","faculty","of","health","research","recommendations","say","not","to","transmit","non","unpublished","content","data","confidential","sensitive","tool","users","transparent","about","in","projects","document","when","writing","scientific","such","protocols","analysis","plans","reports","articles","presentations","dissertations","theses","distinguish","translation","only","software","deepl","linguee","tools","using","chatgpt","for","recommended","resources","page","lists","compilatio","magister","with","cas","access","resource","prevention","detection","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","academic","integrity","approved","named","services","teaching","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"lund-university","entityName":"Lund University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/lund-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/lund-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.9,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-13T02:34:24.000Z","claimCount":10,"sourceCount":5,"country":"Sweden","region":"Lund","aliases":["Lund University","QS 2026 =72","LU","campusonline.lu.se","education.lu.se","lu.se","medarbetarwebben.lu.se","staff.lu.se"],"fields":{"summary":"Lund University is listed as QS 2026 rank =72. Lund University has 10 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI at Lund University","Guidance for teachers in five steps","How to use generative AI responsibly","Policy med principer för användning av generativ AI inom Lunds universitet","Questions and answers on GenAI tools"],"claimSummaries":["Lund University's Swedish generative AI policy encourages staff and students to explore and use generative AI responsibly and creatively within the stated policy principles.","Lund University's Swedish policy says generative AI use is to support learning and research and does not replace basic skills, critical thinking, or scientific method.","Lund University's Swedish policy says staff and students are responsible for all content they produce, including when generative AI has been used as support.","Lund University's Swedish policy says generative AI use is to comply with privacy and security laws and that procured tools or existing licensing agreements should be used in the first instance.","Lund University's student guidance says students who want to use GenAI for a compulsory assignment or examination must check whether it is permitted and how to report its use; presenting GenAI-generated work as one's own may be treated as cheating.","Lund University's staff AI page says users may not write or upload sensitive material or sensitive personal data to ChatGPT, and may never upload medical information regardless of confidentiality status.","Lund University's GenAI Q&A says generative AI tools are permissible in education when teachers believe they contribute to or facilitate learning, with teachers responsible for informing students about course or programme rules.","Lund University's teacher guidance says teachers should inform students after deciding how GenAI products may be used in teaching and should explain whether and how students can use GenAI products in their work.","Lund University's student guidance says students should primarily use Lund-licensed tools such as Microsoft Copilot Chat and Google Gemini, and must not upload other students' work, sensitive personal data, or copyright-protected material.","Lund University's staff AI page says ChatGPT is available free of charge to teachers and researchers for one year through ChatGPT Edu."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["lund","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","72","has","10","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","sweden","lu","campusonline","se","education","medarbetarwebben","staff","at","guidance","for","teachers","in","five","steps","how","to","use","generative","responsibly","med","principer","anvandning","av","generativ","inom","lunds","universitet","questions","answers","on","genai","tools","swedish","encourages","students","explore","creatively","within","stated","principles","says","support","learning","research","does","not","replace","basic","skills","critical","thinking","or","scientific","method","are","responsible","all","content","they","produce","including","when","been","used","comply","with","privacy","security","laws","that","procured","existing","licensing","agreements","should","be","first","instance","student","who","want","compulsory","assignment","examination","must","check","whether","it","permitted","report","its","presenting","generated","work","one","own","may","treated","cheating","page","users","write","upload","sensitive","material","personal","data","chatgpt","never","medical","information","regardless","of","confidentiality","status","permissible","believe","contribute","facilitate","informing","about","course","programme","rules","teacher","inform","after","deciding","products","teaching","explain","can","their","primarily","licensed","such","microsoft","copilot","chat","google","gemini","other","copyright","protected","available","free","charge","researchers","year","through","edu","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","academic","integrity","approved","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-texas-at-austin","entityName":"University of Texas at Austin","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-texas-at-austin","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-texas-at-austin.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-13T01:54:45Z","claimCount":11,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"Austin","aliases":["University of Texas at Austin","QS 2026 68","UTA","ctl.utexas.edu","provost.utexas.edu","security.utexas.edu","utexas.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Texas at Austin is listed as QS 2026 rank 68. University of Texas at Austin has 11 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Acceptable Use of Generative AI Tools | UT Austin Information Security Office","AI Detection Software Guidance - Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost","AI Use in Graduate Education - Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost","Generative AI in Teaching and Learning: Policies | Faculty Instructional Support and Development","Requiring Generative AI in the Classroom - Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost","Responsible Adoption of AI Tools for Teaching and Learning - Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost"],"claimSummaries":["UT Austin acceptable-use guidance says published university information may be used freely with AI tools, while controlled or confidential university information can be used only with university-managed AI tools covered by contracts that protect university data and disable web search functionality.","UT Austin acceptable-use guidance says unauthorized AI tools are not approved for controlled or confidential university information, including student records subject to FERPA, health information, proprietary information, and other controlled or confidential data.","UT Austin AI detection guidance prohibits third-party AI detection software from being used to evaluate student work or assignments unless a university contract or purchase order is in place.","UT Austin acceptable-use guidance says the CISO must review AI tools before procurement, development, deployment, or use when the tools are intended to autonomously make, or be a controlling factor in making, consequential decisions.","UT Austin responsible-adoption guidance defines responsible AI use in teaching and learning as adopting AI in ways that facilitate learning outcomes and foster human development for campus community members.","UT Austin AI detection guidance says submitting student work into AI detection or other third-party software without a university contract or purchase order may violate student copyright, intellectual property, or FERPA privacy rights.","UT Austin responsible-adoption guidance includes academic integrity as a principle for AI use, linking responsible use to the honor code, scholarly values, ownership, and appropriate authorship of tool outputs.","UT Austin graduate-education recommendations state that graduate students and mentors must use only vetted, university-contracted generative AI platforms for work involving non-public research data.","UT Austin CTL teaching-policy guidance says using generative AI tools to create course-assignment responses in a way the instructor does not accept may be considered academic dishonesty by the university.","UT Austin classroom guidance recommends that instructors requiring generative AI understand and abide by UT acceptable-use guidance, identify syllabus policies clearly, and submit specific software requirements through the University Co-Op.","UT Austin graduate-education recommendations say students should remain accountable as the sole intellectual author of milestone work and should never cite AI as an author."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","texas","at","austin","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","68","has","11","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","uta","ctl","utexas","edu","provost","security","acceptable","use","generative","tools","ut","information","office","detection","software","guidance","executive","vice","president","in","graduate","education","teaching","learning","policies","faculty","instructional","support","development","requiring","classroom","responsible","adoption","for","says","published","may","be","used","freely","with","while","controlled","or","confidential","can","only","managed","covered","by","contracts","that","protect","data","disable","web","search","functionality","unauthorized","are","not","approved","including","student","subject","to","ferpa","health","proprietary","other","prohibits","third","party","being","evaluate","work","assignments","unless","contract","purchase","order","place","ciso","must","before","procurement","deployment","when","intended","autonomously","make","controlling","factor","making","consequential","decisions","defines","adopting","ways","facilitate","outcomes","foster","human","campus","community","members","submitting","into","without","violate","copyright","intellectual","property","privacy","rights","includes","academic","integrity","principle","linking","honor","code","scholarly","values","ownership","appropriate","authorship","tool","outputs","recommendations","students","mentors","vetted","contracted","platforms","involving","non","research","using","create","course","assignment","responses","way","instructor","does","accept","considered","dishonesty","recommends","instructors","understand","abide","identify","syllabus","clearly","submit","specific","requirements","through","co","op","say","should","remain","accountable","sole","author","milestone","never","cite","an","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","named","services"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-auckland","entityName":"The University of Auckland","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-auckland","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-auckland.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-13T01:54:13Z","claimCount":7,"sourceCount":7,"country":"New Zealand","region":"Auckland","aliases":["The University of Auckland","university-of-auckland","QS 2026 65","UA","ac.nz","auckland.ac.nz","teachwell.auckland.ac.nz"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Auckland is listed as QS 2026 rank 65. The University of Auckland has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Advice for students on using Artificial Intelligence","Assessment of Courses Procedures","Guidelines on permitted use of software in assessment activities","Learn about the University's AI Usage Standard","Student guidelines for using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in taught courses","The use of AI tools in coursework","Two-Lane Approach to assessment"],"claimSummaries":["The University of Auckland's Assessment of Courses Procedures state that AI use in assessment tasks may only be restricted when the task is a controlled assessment, identified as Lane 1; AI may be used without restriction in other assessment tasks, identified as Lane 2.","The University of Auckland's Assessment of Courses Procedures require courses to use the two-lane nomenclature, including telling students which assessments align with Lane 1 or Lane 2, and require courses and programmes to implement the two-lane approach in assessment design by 2027.","The University of Auckland's student AI advice states that AI has no agency, treats the student prompting an AI tool as the author, and says students are ultimately responsible for work submitted for assessment.","The University of Auckland's permitted-software assessment guideline says Gen-AI may not be permitted for assessment activities where the assessed skills overlap with functions performed by Gen-AI, and says use of non-permitted software may be considered a breach of academic integrity.","The University of Auckland TeachWell two-lane assessment guidance says the University does not endorse third-party AI detection tools, citing unreliability, false positives, and possible student-data training risks.","Auckland Law School's student AI guidelines for taught courses state that using AI to generate, draft, or assist in creating content for graded assignments is prohibited unless the instructor explicitly permits it in writing.","The University of Auckland's public TeachWell explainer for the AI Usage Standard says users should assess data against the University's data classification before submitting it to an AI tool, and says restricted data should not be used with AI chat services."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","auckland","the","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","65","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","new","zealand","ua","ac","nz","teachwell","advice","for","students","on","using","artificial","intelligence","assessment","courses","procedures","guidelines","permitted","use","software","in","activities","learn","about","usage","standard","student","taught","tools","coursework","two","lane","approach","to","that","tasks","may","only","be","restricted","when","task","controlled","identified","used","without","restriction","other","require","nomenclature","including","telling","which","assessments","align","with","or","programmes","implement","design","by","2027","states","no","agency","treats","prompting","an","tool","author","says","are","ultimately","responsible","work","submitted","guideline","gen","not","where","assessed","skills","overlap","functions","performed","non","considered","breach","academic","integrity","guidance","does","endorse","third","party","detection","citing","unreliability","false","positives","possible","data","training","risks","law","school","generate","draft","assist","creating","content","graded","assignments","prohibited","unless","instructor","explicitly","permits","it","writing","explainer","users","should","assess","against","classification","before","submitting","chat","services","presence","disclosure","exams","privacy","entry","approved","named","teaching","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"kfupm","entityName":"KFUPM","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/kfupm","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/kfupm.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.94,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-13T01:54:04Z","claimCount":3,"sourceCount":1,"country":"Saudi Arabia","region":"Dhahran","aliases":["KFUPM","QS 2026 67","edu.sa","kfupm.edu.sa"],"fields":{"summary":"KFUPM is listed as QS 2026 rank 67. KFUPM has 3 source-backed AI policy claim records from 1 official source attribution. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI+X"],"claimSummaries":["KFUPM's AI+X page describes AI+X as an initiative designed to equip every undergraduate student with essential AI skills and says students begin with foundational AI coursework before their selected academic programs.","KFUPM's AI+X page says all undergraduate students are required to complete AI-focused coursework and states an institutional goal to graduate 10,000 AI-skilled professionals by 2030.","KFUPM's AI+X page states that KFUPM launched ChatGPT Edu in partnership with OpenAI and describes the initiative as integrating AI tools into classrooms and research environments."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["kfupm","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","67","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attribution","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","saudi","arabia","dhahran","edu","sa","page","describes","an","initiative","designed","to","equip","every","undergraduate","student","with","essential","skills","says","students","begin","foundational","coursework","before","their","selected","academic","programs","all","are","required","complete","focused","states","institutional","goal","graduate","10","000","skilled","professionals","by","2030","that","launched","chatgpt","in","partnership","openai","integrating","tools","into","classrooms","research","environments","presence","disclosure","exams","privacy","data","entry","integrity","approved","named","services","teaching","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-california-san-diego","entityName":"University of California, San Diego (UCSD)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-california-san-diego","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-california-san-diego.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-13T01:49:20.000Z","claimCount":9,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"San Diego","aliases":["University of California, San Diego (UCSD)","university-of-california-san-diego","QS 2026 66","UCSD","academicintegrity.ucsd.edu","blink.ucsd.edu","libguides.com","senate.ucsd.edu","ucsd.edu","ucsd.libguides.com"],"fields":{"summary":"University of California, San Diego (UCSD) is listed as QS 2026 rank 66. University of California, San Diego (UCSD) has 9 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI and Academic Integrity - Generative Artificial Intelligence - LibGuides at University of California San Diego","Artificial Intelligence in Education","Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI in Research at UC San Diego","UC San Diego Academic Integrity Policy","UC San Diego's Support of AI","Using ChatGPT"],"claimSummaries":["UC San Diego's Academic Integrity Policy says students may not let academic work or academic credit be completed for them by another human or by machine/artificial intelligence, and may not use unauthorized aids including artificial intelligence in coursework or assessments.","UC San Diego Academic Integrity Office student guidance says that if an instructor has not said a student can use GenAI for a class or assessment, the student cannot use it; silence does not equal permission.","UC San Diego Academic Integrity Office guidance says students authorized to use a GenAI tool should use it only in the way authorized for that assignment, should not assume authorization extends to other assignments or courses, and are advised to save history and acknowledge use to the professor.","UC San Diego Blink identifies TritonGPT as the university's preferred generative AI platform and says it is securely hosted at the San Diego Supercomputer Center so UC San Diego maintains full control over its data.","UC San Diego Blink says the university evaluates and supports AI services integrated into supported platforms using criteria that reflect University of California data protection and security policies, including Electronic Information Security, Electronic Communication, Export Control, and FERPA standards.","UC San Diego's Academic Integrity Office says its Critical AI Literacy Canvas Module is a resource to support instructors in introducing students to AI competencies and engaging students in ethical and responsible GenAI use.","UC San Diego Library's GenAI academic-integrity guide says students might be cheating if they use a tool that has been prohibited or one that is not explicitly allowed by the course instructor.","A 2025 UC San Diego Senate-Administration Workgroup report proposed that responsible GenAI use in research be grounded in research integrity, human oversight, disciplinary norms, responsible innovation, and principles over prescriptions.","A 2025 UC San Diego Senate-Administration Workgroup report says researchers should understand UC San Diego data classification policies, including which protected health information, human subjects data, student work, intellectual property, and similar data may not be used with non-secure GenAI tools."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","california","san","diego","ucsd","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","66","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","academicintegrity","edu","blink","libguides","com","senate","academic","integrity","generative","artificial","intelligence","at","in","education","guidelines","for","use","research","uc","support","using","chatgpt","says","students","may","not","let","work","or","credit","be","completed","them","by","another","human","machine","unauthorized","aids","including","coursework","assessments","office","student","guidance","that","if","an","instructor","said","can","genai","class","assessment","cannot","it","silence","does","equal","permission","authorized","to","tool","should","only","way","assignment","assume","authorization","extends","other","assignments","courses","are","advised","save","history","acknowledge","professor","identifies","tritongpt","preferred","platform","securely","hosted","supercomputer","center","so","maintains","full","control","over","its","data","evaluates","supports","services","integrated","into","supported","platforms","criteria","reflect","protection","security","policies","electronic","information","communication","export","ferpa","standards","critical","literacy","canvas","module","resource","instructors","introducing","competencies","engaging","ethical","responsible","library","guide","might","cheating","they","been","prohibited","one","explicitly","allowed","course","2025","administration","workgroup","report","proposed","grounded","oversight","disciplinary","norms","innovation","principles","prescriptions","researchers","understand","classification","which","protected","health","subjects","intellectual","property","similar","used","with","non","secure","tools","presence","disclosure","exams","privacy","entry","approved","named","teaching","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"the-university-of-warwick","entityName":"The University of Warwick","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/the-university-of-warwick","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/the-university-of-warwick.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T22:26:00Z","claimCount":10,"sourceCount":5,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"Coventry","aliases":["The University of Warwick","QS 2026 74","UW","ac.uk","warwick.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Warwick is listed as QS 2026 rank 74. The University of Warwick has 10 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI - responsible and ethical use","AI and assessment","AI in Research","Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity","IMP 02: AI Information Compliance Policy"],"claimSummaries":["Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy says all new uses of AI tools, products, or services must go through appropriate procurement processes, regardless of cost.","Warwick's student-facing guidance says students are required to state whether AI was used in the submission process and explain why, where, and how it was used.","Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy covers everyone with a contractual or implied relationship with the University and all information processed by the University.","Warwick's AI Information Compliance Policy says certain data, including personal or confidential material, University intellectual property, and some copyrighted or third-party data, must not be put into AI software without prior approval.","Warwick's student-facing guidance says students may use AI only within requirements set out in assessment briefs and course handbooks, which may restrict or prohibit AI use.","Warwick's AI in research guidance says its principles apply to all researchers and researchers must consider AI-related research risks including integrity, information security, and accountability risks.","Warwick's student-facing guidance tells students not to enter personal or confidential data into AI tools unless they understand what will happen to the data, and recommends Copilot chat with a Warwick account for that kind of data.","Warwick's AI in research guidance says researchers are responsible for misconduct-type practices involving AI, including improper handling of information or use of another person's ideas, even if such practices occur inadvertently through an AI tool.","Warwick's assessment-design guidance says generative AI use in student submissions needs thoughtful support so responsible use and clear demonstration of human achievement are maintained.","Warwick's responsible-use guidance frames responsible AI use as honest, ethical, transparent, human-accountable, safe, secure, and attentive to bias, fairness, inclusivity, and accessibility."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["the","university","of","warwick","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","74","has","10","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","coventry","uw","ac","uk","responsible","ethical","use","assessment","in","research","artificial","intelligence","academic","integrity","imp","02","information","compliance","says","all","new","uses","tools","products","or","services","must","go","through","appropriate","procurement","processes","regardless","cost","student","facing","guidance","students","are","required","to","whether","was","used","submission","process","explain","why","where","how","it","covers","everyone","with","contractual","implied","relationship","processed","by","certain","data","including","personal","confidential","material","intellectual","property","some","copyrighted","third","party","not","be","put","into","software","without","prior","approval","may","only","within","requirements","set","out","briefs","course","handbooks","which","restrict","prohibit","its","principles","apply","researchers","consider","related","risks","security","accountability","tells","enter","unless","they","understand","what","will","happen","recommends","copilot","chat","account","for","that","kind","misconduct","type","practices","involving","improper","handling","another","person","ideas","even","if","such","occur","inadvertently","an","tool","design","generative","submissions","needs","thoughtful","support","so","clear","demonstration","human","achievement","maintained","frames","honest","transparent","accountable","safe","secure","attentive","bias","fairness","inclusivity","accessibility","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","approved","named","teaching"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"universite-paris-saclay","entityName":"Université Paris-Saclay","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/universite-paris-saclay","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/universite-paris-saclay.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.92,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T18:13:00.000Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":3,"country":"France","region":"Gif-sur-Yvette","aliases":["Université Paris-Saclay","QS 2026 =70","UPS","faculte-sciences-sport.universite-paris-saclay.fr","universite-paris-saclay.fr"],"fields":{"summary":"Université Paris-Saclay is listed as QS 2026 rank =70. Université Paris-Saclay has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Groupe de travail Intelligence artificielle générative (IAG)","Règlement des études, MCC et charte des examens des formations de 1er cycle de l'Université Paris-Saclay 2025-2026","Règlement des études, MCC et charte des examens des formations de master de l'Université Paris-Saclay 2025-2026"],"claimSummaries":["Université Paris-Saclay's 2025-2026 first-cycle exam rules say that, for Licence professionnelle, Licence, and Licence double-diplôme students covered by the rules, use of ChatGPT or another AI tool must be explicitly mentioned when it is not prohibited, and failure to mention AI as a source will be sanctioned.","Université Paris-Saclay's 2025-2026 master exam rules say that use of ChatGPT or another AI tool must be explicitly mentioned when it is not prohibited, like any external source borrowing or citation, and failure to mention AI as a source will be sanctioned.","Université Paris-Saclay's official IAG working-group article says the group aims to familiarize teacher-researchers and students with generative AI and orient them toward good practices in teaching and research.","The Université Paris-Saclay IAG working-group article describes ongoing reflections on student competencies at the end of first and second cycles, the academic dissertation in the generative-AI era, and how generative AI should be integrated or controlled in university work.","In the Graduate School Droit context, the Université Paris-Saclay IAG working-group article says a guide of good practices and evaluation support for law teacher-researchers is being drafted."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["universite","paris","saclay","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","70","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","france","gif","sur","yvette","ups","faculte","sciences","sport","fr","groupe","de","travail","intelligence","artificielle","generative","iag","reglement","des","etudes","mcc","et","charte","examens","formations","1er","cycle","2025","master","first","exam","rules","say","that","for","licence","professionnelle","double","diplome","students","covered","by","use","of","chatgpt","or","another","tool","must","be","explicitly","mentioned","when","it","not","prohibited","failure","to","mention","will","sanctioned","like","any","external","borrowing","citation","working","group","article","says","aims","familiarize","teacher","researchers","with","orient","them","toward","good","practices","in","teaching","research","describes","ongoing","reflections","on","student","competencies","at","end","second","cycles","academic","dissertation","era","how","should","integrated","controlled","university","work","graduate","school","droit","context","guide","evaluation","support","law","being","drafted","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","integrity","approved","tools","named","services","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"brown-university","entityName":"Brown University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/brown-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/brown-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T18:00:00.000Z","claimCount":9,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"Providence","aliases":["Brown University","QS 2026 69","BU","brown.edu","ithelp.brown.edu","ouc.brown.edu","provost.brown.edu","sheridan.brown.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Brown University is listed as QS 2026 rank 69. Brown University has 9 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Guidelines for Brown Communicators","Generative AI as a Research Tool","Google Gemini Chat and NotebookLM AI Services","Intentional Pedagogy with AI Technology","Potential impact of AI on our academic mission","Protecting Information When Using AI Tools"],"claimSummaries":["Brown OIT guidance says users should not enter Level 2 or 3 Brown data into publicly available or vendor-enabled AI tools unless Brown has a contract for a specific service that protects the data.","Brown OIT guidance says Google Gemini Chat and NotebookLM are accessible at no cost to Brown and can be used with data classified as Risk Level 3, unlike consumer AI services named on the page with which Brown does not have agreements.","Brown Provost guidance says any unapproved use of AI to complete assignments would be covered by Brown’s Academic Code and Graduate Student Edition Academic Code.","Brown University Provost guidance says the University is not prescribing specific AI policies, and that faculty should give clear, unambiguous information about what AI use is and is not allowed in their courses.","Brown OIT guidance says Gemini and NotebookLM are optional tools available to Brown students, Brown staff, Brown-paid faculty, and Brown clinical/medical faculty.","Brown Sheridan Center guidance says instructors should be explicit with students about expectations for generative AI use, including how students should, might, or cannot engage with it.","Brown OIT research guidance says researchers should deeply review AI-generated code for quality and efficiency.","Brown OIT guidance says AI tool use is subject to the same policies as other information technology resources, including acceptable use, copyright, conduct, and contract review policies.","Brown University Communications guidance for Brown communicators says not to input identifying personal information or proprietary information into AI tools."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["brown","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","69","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","providence","bu","edu","ithelp","ouc","provost","sheridan","guidelines","for","communicators","generative","research","tool","google","gemini","chat","notebooklm","services","intentional","pedagogy","with","technology","potential","impact","of","on","our","academic","mission","protecting","information","when","using","tools","oit","guidance","says","users","should","not","enter","level","or","data","into","publicly","available","vendor","enabled","unless","contract","specific","service","that","protects","are","accessible","at","no","cost","to","can","be","used","classified","risk","unlike","consumer","named","page","which","does","have","agreements","any","unapproved","use","complete","assignments","would","covered","by","code","graduate","student","edition","prescribing","policies","faculty","give","clear","unambiguous","about","what","allowed","in","their","courses","optional","students","staff","paid","clinical","medical","center","instructors","explicit","expectations","including","how","might","cannot","engage","it","researchers","deeply","generated","quality","efficiency","subject","same","other","resources","acceptable","copyright","conduct","communications","input","identifying","personal","proprietary","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","integrity","approved","teaching","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"duke-university","entityName":"Duke University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/duke-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/duke-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T17:25:00Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"Durham","aliases":["Duke University","QS 2026 62","DU","ai.duke.edu","ctl.duke.edu","duke.edu","dukecommunitystandard.students.duke.edu","myresearchpath.duke.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Duke University is listed as QS 2026 rank 62. Duke University has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Dishonesty","AI Tools and Resources","Artificial Intelligence and Assignment Design","Artificial Intelligence Policies: Guidelines and Considerations","Learn with AI","Using Generative AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools in research"],"claimSummaries":["Duke student-facing AI guidance says whether a student may use AI in coursework depends on instructor permission; unauthorized generative AI use is considered academic misconduct under the Duke Community Standard.","Duke Community Standard academic-dishonesty guidance includes unauthorized use of artificial intelligence software among examples of cheating-related conduct.","Duke states that it offers a suite of secure and accessible AI platforms to students, staff, and faculty.","Duke CTL guidance tells instructors to update syllabi with clear guidance on generative AI use and says instructors may define how, if, and when generative AI may be used in their courses.","Duke AI tool guidance describes ChatGPT as available to Duke University faculty, staff, and students, with sensitive-data use excluding PHI and governed by institutional agreement.","Duke CTL assignment-design guidance says AI assignments should be accompanied by course and assignment-specific AI policies, with the primary consideration being whether AI use helps students achieve course learning goals.","Duke research guidance says researchers should document and publish AI decision-making alongside research and should not cite chatbot-summarized information they have not authenticated.","Duke CTL assignment-design guidance advises that personal information should not be shared when using AI in assignments, to minimize privacy threats to students and instructors."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["duke","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","62","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","durham","du","edu","ctl","dukecommunitystandard","students","myresearchpath","academic","dishonesty","tools","resources","artificial","intelligence","assignment","design","policies","guidelines","considerations","learn","with","using","generative","in","research","student","facing","guidance","says","whether","may","use","coursework","depends","on","instructor","permission","unauthorized","considered","misconduct","under","community","standard","includes","of","software","among","examples","cheating","related","conduct","that","it","offers","suite","secure","accessible","platforms","to","staff","faculty","tells","instructors","update","syllabi","clear","define","how","if","when","be","used","their","courses","tool","describes","chatgpt","available","sensitive","data","excluding","phi","governed","by","institutional","agreement","assignments","should","accompanied","course","specific","primary","consideration","being","helps","achieve","learning","goals","researchers","document","publish","decision","making","alongside","not","cite","chatbot","summarized","information","they","have","authenticated","advises","personal","shared","minimize","privacy","threats","presence","disclosure","exams","entry","integrity","approved","named","services","teaching","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"city-university-of-hong-kong","entityName":"City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/city-university-of-hong-kong","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/city-university-of-hong-kong.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.88,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T15:55:00Z","claimCount":1,"sourceCount":1,"country":"Hong Kong SAR","region":"Kowloon","aliases":["City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK)","city-university-of-hong-kong","QS 2026 =63","CityUHK","CUHK","cityu.edu.hk","edu.hk"],"fields":{"summary":"City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK) is listed as QS 2026 rank =63. City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK) has 1 source-backed AI policy claim record from 1 official source attribution. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI Tools in Teaching and Learning | City University of Hong Kong"],"claimSummaries":["CityUHK has an official guideline index for the use of generative AI tools in teaching and learning, effective from Semester A 2025/26, with separate staff and student guideline links."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["city","university","of","hong","kong","cityuhk","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","63","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","record","from","official","attribution","the","public","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","sar","kowloon","cuhk","cityu","edu","hk","guidelines","on","use","generative","tools","in","teaching","learning","an","guideline","index","for","effective","semester","2025","26","with","separate","staff","student","links","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","academic","integrity","approved","named","services","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"kyoto-university","entityName":"Kyoto University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/kyoto-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/kyoto-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T15:30:00Z","claimCount":7,"sourceCount":3,"country":"Japan","region":"Kyoto","aliases":["Kyoto University","QS 2026 57","KU","ac.jp","iimc.kyoto-u.ac.jp","oei.kyoto-u.ac.jp"],"fields":{"summary":"Kyoto University is listed as QS 2026 rank 57. Kyoto University has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["京都大学の教育・学修におけるAIの利活用について","生成AI | 京都大学情報環境機構","生成AIサービスにおける情報セキュリティ上の注意点と学内の各種生成AIサービスについて | 京都大学情報環境機構"],"claimSummaries":["Kyoto University tells students to follow the generative AI use policy set by the course instructor or research supervisor for coursework, reports, and thesis writing.","Kyoto University states that highly confidential information that must not leave the university should not be entered into generative AI services.","Kyoto University tells students to record and, when required, disclose how they used generative AI beyond wording revisions, and warns that using AI output in their own work may be judged misconduct.","Kyoto University warns students not to casually enter privacy-related information, confidential information, or copyrighted works into generative AI prompts or uploaded data.","Kyoto University has adopted an education and learning AI initiative intended to support responsible generative AI use by faculty, staff, and students while minimizing learning risks.","Kyoto University expects instructors to state their generative AI use policy to students and, for courses focused on basic knowledge or skills, to preserve grading fairness through checks such as written or oral examinations.","Kyoto University lists Gemini, NotebookLM, and Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat as generative AI services available to students, faculty, and staff."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["kyoto","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","57","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","japan","ku","ac","jp","iimc","oei","tells","students","to","follow","generative","use","set","by","course","instructor","or","research","supervisor","for","coursework","reports","thesis","writing","states","that","highly","confidential","information","must","not","leave","should","be","entered","into","services","when","required","disclose","how","they","used","beyond","wording","revisions","warns","using","output","in","their","own","work","may","judged","misconduct","casually","enter","privacy","related","copyrighted","works","prompts","uploaded","data","adopted","an","education","learning","initiative","intended","support","responsible","faculty","staff","while","minimizing","risks","expects","instructors","courses","focused","on","basic","knowledge","skills","preserve","grading","fairness","through","checks","such","written","oral","examinations","lists","gemini","notebooklm","microsoft","365","copilot","chat","available","presence","disclosure","exams","entry","academic","integrity","approved","tools","named","teaching","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"ku-leuven","entityName":"KU Leuven","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/ku-leuven","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/ku-leuven.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.9,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T14:40:40.000Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":5,"country":"Belgium","region":"Leuven","aliases":["KU Leuven","QS 2026 60","KL","kuleuven.be","research.kuleuven.be"],"fields":{"summary":"KU Leuven is listed as QS 2026 rank 60. KU Leuven has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Generative AI at KU Leuven","Guidelines for safe use of GenAI tools","Responsible use of Generative AI in our education","Responsible use of generative Artificial Intelligence","Using generative artificial intelligence as a researcher"],"claimSummaries":["KU Leuven permits and encourages responsible, critical use of generative AI in teaching and research, framing it as a complement to critical thinking and professional expertise rather than a replacement.","KU Leuven student guidance says students remain fully responsible for what they submit and must ensure assignments allow teaching staff to assess their acquired competences.","KU Leuven student guidance says clear misuse of GenAI, where output is largely generated by GenAI and the student is not transparent about tool use, can be considered an irregularity under Article 84 of the Education and Examination Regulations.","KU Leuven teaching guidance expects teaching staff to clearly inform students whether GenAI may be used for assignments and expects students to be transparent about GenAI use so assessment can be fair and correct.","KU Leuven identifies Copilot logged in with a KU Leuven account as its recommended GenAI tool, citing contractual data protection, Enterprise technical security, and Microsoft not using entered data for further training.","KU Leuven guidance says strictly confidential data should use only Copilot logged in with a KU Leuven account, and confidential or strictly confidential data require a security check if another AI tool is needed.","KU Leuven safe-use guidance warns users to be careful with unsupported AI tools and not to enter personal data, confidential information, IP-sensitive data, or copyrighted material.","KU Leuven research guidance says GenAI use needs to be reported transparently whenever new output is generated in scientific publications, project applications, or doctoral theses."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["ku","leuven","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","60","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","belgium","kl","kuleuven","be","research","generative","at","guidelines","for","safe","use","of","genai","tools","responsible","in","our","education","artificial","intelligence","using","researcher","permits","encourages","critical","teaching","framing","it","complement","to","thinking","professional","expertise","rather","than","replacement","student","guidance","says","students","remain","fully","what","they","submit","must","ensure","assignments","allow","staff","assess","their","acquired","competences","clear","misuse","where","output","largely","generated","by","not","transparent","about","tool","can","considered","an","irregularity","under","article","84","examination","regulations","expects","clearly","inform","whether","may","used","so","assessment","fair","correct","identifies","copilot","logged","with","account","its","recommended","citing","contractual","data","protection","enterprise","technical","security","microsoft","entered","further","training","strictly","confidential","should","only","or","require","check","if","another","needed","warns","users","careful","unsupported","enter","personal","information","ip","sensitive","copyrighted","material","needs","reported","transparently","whenever","new","scientific","publications","project","applications","doctoral","theses","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","academic","integrity","approved","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"national-taiwan-university","entityName":"National Taiwan University (NTU)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/national-taiwan-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/national-taiwan-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T14:43:02Z","claimCount":9,"sourceCount":4,"country":"Taiwan","region":"Taipei","aliases":["National Taiwan University (NTU)","national-taiwan-university","QS 2026 =63","NTU","dlc.ntu.edu.tw","edu.tw","emha.coph.ntu.edu.tw","forex.ntu.edu.tw","ntusw.ntu.edu.tw"],"fields":{"summary":"National Taiwan University (NTU) is listed as QS 2026 rank =63. National Taiwan University (NTU) has 9 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["國立臺灣大學健康政策與管理研究所教學研究行為守則","國立臺灣大學外國語文學系學生使用生成式AI 參考指引","臺大社會工作學刊出版倫理聲明","臺大針對生成式 AI 工具之教學因應措施"],"claimSummaries":["NTU DFLL guidance says instructors may decide whether students may use generative AI; if permitted, students should clearly label AI-generated content and follow academic ethics.","NTU DFLL guidance says student-submitted theses, works, written reports, technical reports or professional-practice reports should be personally written and created by the student; generative-AI cheating is subject to NTU Academic Regulations Articles 88 and 88-1.","National Taiwan University guidance says it takes a positive and constructive view of AI tools, encourages teachers to adjust course planning and learning assessment, and says students should understand AI-tool limitations for future learning.","National Taiwan University guidance recommends that instructors clarify AI-use principles and rules early in the course, preferably in the syllabus, including which activities and assignments may or may not use AI tools.","National Taiwan University guidance says students using ChatGPT for assignments or reports should clearly label AI-generated content, fact-check it, and comply with academic ethics and academic-integrity requirements.","National Taiwan University guidance says AI-detection tools have limited accuracy and are not sufficient evidence by themselves to confirm student AI use; it recommends caution before accusing students based only on such tools.","NTU Health Policy and Management conduct rules allow AI tools according to teaching and research needs, but require users to clearly explain the content and scope of use, respect privacy, disclose assistance sources, verify AI output, and take responsibility for results.","NTU Social Work journal publication ethics states that AI tools cannot assume responsibility for submitted research; authors remain fully responsible, must disclose AI use in the relevant section, and may not list or cite AI as an author.","NTU Social Work journal publication ethics says reviewers must not input manuscript content or review-related material into generative AI tools to help write review comments, in order to protect manuscript confidentiality and author rights."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["national","taiwan","university","ntu","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","63","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","taipei","dlc","edu","tw","emha","coph","forex","ntusw","dfll","guidance","says","instructors","may","decide","whether","students","use","generative","if","permitted","should","clearly","label","generated","content","follow","academic","ethics","student","submitted","theses","works","written","reports","technical","or","professional","practice","be","personally","created","by","cheating","subject","to","regulations","articles","88","it","takes","positive","constructive","view","of","tools","encourages","teachers","adjust","course","planning","learning","assessment","understand","tool","limitations","for","future","recommends","that","clarify","principles","rules","early","in","preferably","syllabus","including","which","activities","assignments","not","using","chatgpt","fact","check","comply","with","integrity","requirements","detection","have","limited","accuracy","are","sufficient","themselves","confirm","caution","before","accusing","based","only","on","such","health","management","conduct","allow","according","teaching","research","needs","but","require","users","explain","scope","respect","privacy","disclose","assistance","sources","verify","output","take","responsibility","results","social","work","journal","publication","states","cannot","assume","authors","remain","fully","responsible","must","relevant","section","list","cite","an","author","reviewers","input","manuscript","related","material","into","help","write","comments","order","protect","confidentiality","rights","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","data","entry","approved","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"korea-university","entityName":"Korea University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/korea-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/korea-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T14:35:00.000Z","claimCount":12,"sourceCount":3,"country":"South Korea","region":"Seoul","aliases":["Korea University","QS 2026 61","KU","ac.kr","ctl.korea.ac.kr"],"fields":{"summary":"Korea University is listed as QS 2026 rank 61. Korea University has 12 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["2026 AI 활용 가이드라인 및 가이드북 배포 - 고려대학교 교수학습지원센터, 원격교육센터","Korea University 2026 AI Utilization Guidelines English","Korea University 2026 AI Utilization Guidelines Korean"],"claimSummaries":["Korea University states that submitting AI-generated content as one’s own, or using it without permission, is academic misconduct.","Korea University states that its AI guideline primarily applies to generative AI used directly in teaching and learning, while its basic principles also apply to educational use of all AI tools.","Korea University says AI-detection and plagiarism-prevention tools should be used only as supplementary references and not as the sole basis for misconduct findings.","Korea University tells instructors not to enter personal information, academic records, assessment questions, or other sensitive or non-public materials into AI tools, with special caution for external AI services.","Korea University tells learners to disclose the AI tool name, timing, and scope of use, distinguish their own work from AI contributions, and cite AI-generated content according to the required format.","Korea University University College Distance Learning Center distributed 2026 AI utilization guidelines and a guidebook to support responsible and effective AI use in teaching and learning.","Korea University instructs instructors to decide course AI-use policies based on course purpose, teaching method, and assignment nature, and to state the policy in the syllabus.","Korea University tells learners to check each course’s AI-use guideline before coursework and ask the instructor if permission is unclear.","Korea University tells learners not to enter personal information, non-public learning materials, or assessment questions into external AI tools, and to remember that AI inputs may be stored or reused.","Korea University frames AI as a tool that assists education and learning, with human thought and judgment remaining central.","Korea University says instructors should explain AI-use policies at the first class and notify learners that violations may be treated as academic integrity breaches.","Korea University recommends designing assignments and assessments to show learners’ critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving process, and their own reasoning even when AI is used."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["korea","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","61","has","12","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","south","seoul","ku","ac","kr","ctl","utilization","guidelines","english","korean","states","that","submitting","generated","content","one","own","or","using","it","without","permission","academic","misconduct","its","guideline","primarily","applies","to","generative","used","directly","in","teaching","learning","while","basic","principles","also","apply","educational","use","of","all","tools","says","detection","plagiarism","prevention","should","be","only","supplementary","references","not","sole","basis","for","findings","tells","instructors","enter","personal","information","assessment","questions","other","sensitive","non","materials","into","with","special","caution","external","services","learners","disclose","tool","name","timing","scope","distinguish","their","work","contributions","cite","according","required","format","college","distance","center","distributed","guidebook","support","responsible","effective","instructs","decide","course","policies","based","on","purpose","method","assignment","nature","syllabus","check","each","before","coursework","ask","instructor","if","unclear","remember","inputs","may","stored","reused","frames","assists","education","human","thought","judgment","remaining","central","explain","at","first","class","notify","violations","treated","integrity","breaches","recommends","designing","assignments","assessments","show","critical","thinking","creativity","problem","solving","process","reasoning","even","when","presence","disclosure","exams","privacy","data","entry","approved","named","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"universiti-malaya","entityName":"Universiti Malaya (UM)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/universiti-malaya","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/universiti-malaya.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.9,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T14:07:20.000Z","claimCount":6,"sourceCount":3,"country":"Malaysia","region":"Kuala Lumpur","aliases":["Universiti Malaya (UM)","universiti-malaya","QS 2026 =58","UM","edu.my","ias.um.edu.my","spm.um.edu.my"],"fields":{"summary":"Universiti Malaya (UM) is listed as QS 2026 rank =58. Universiti Malaya (UM) has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Teaching and Learning","Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Teaching and Learning","Universiti Malaya Academic Policy on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Guidelines on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence"],"claimSummaries":["Universiti Malaya's AI policy applies to academic staff and students across teaching and learning activities, including coursework, research projects, dissertations, final-year projects, theses, and online or blended learning activities.","Universiti Malaya student guidance frames AI as a learning support tool and says students remain responsible for ensuring submitted work reflects their own understanding and intellectual contribution.","Universiti Malaya guidance says lecturers specify the permitted level of AI use for each assignment or assessment, using levels from no AI use through integrated AI use.","Universiti Malaya guidance requires students to declare AI tools used in assignments or assessments and says failure to disclose AI use may be considered academic misconduct.","Universiti Malaya guidance warns students not to upload confidential academic materials, research data, or university documents to public AI platforms without permission.","Universiti Malaya's AI policy includes increasing awareness of ethical risks, copyright issues, data security including data privacy, and algorithmic bias in AI use."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["universiti","malaya","um","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","58","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","malaysia","kuala","lumpur","edu","my","ias","spm","ethical","use","of","artificial","intelligence","in","teaching","learning","on","academic","guidelines","applies","to","staff","students","across","activities","including","coursework","research","projects","dissertations","final","year","theses","online","or","blended","student","guidance","frames","support","tool","says","remain","responsible","for","ensuring","submitted","work","reflects","their","own","understanding","intellectual","contribution","lecturers","specify","permitted","level","each","assignment","assessment","using","levels","no","through","integrated","requires","declare","tools","used","assignments","assessments","failure","disclose","may","be","considered","misconduct","warns","not","upload","confidential","materials","data","university","documents","platforms","without","permission","includes","increasing","awareness","risks","copyright","issues","security","privacy","algorithmic","bias","presence","disclosure","exams","entry","integrity","approved","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"ludwig-maximilians-universitat-munchen","entityName":"Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/ludwig-maximilians-universitat-munchen","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/ludwig-maximilians-universitat-munchen.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T14:09:15Z","claimCount":6,"sourceCount":3,"country":"Germany","region":"Munich","aliases":["Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München","QS 2026 =58","LMUM","cms-cdn.lmu.de","lmu.de","med.lmu.de"],"fields":{"summary":"Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München is listed as QS 2026 rank =58. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Handreichung zum Umgang mit KI","The use of AI by students","Umgang und Nutzung von künstlicher Intelligenz"],"claimSummaries":["LMU IfKW student guidance says AI may be used in assessments only with explicit teacher permission; if no explicit permission is given, students must assume AI use is not allowed.","LMU IfKW guidance says material containing personal information must not be entered into AI systems without consent and unless German or EU data-protection standards are met.","LMU IfKW guidance treats verbatim or minimally changed AI-generated text without proper attribution as plagiarism, and says significant unattributed AI-generated text in assessed work can receive grade 5 (failed).","LMU Medical Faculty dissertation guidance says doctoral authors must disclose when, where, and to what extent AI was used, name AI as an aid in the affidavit, and mark sections where AI was used for creation or editing.","LMU IfKW guidance says permitted AI use in assessed work, including preliminary tasks, must be completely and appropriately documented.","LMU teaching guidance recommends adapting e-exam questions for ChatGPT-era assessment, including tasks that require critical reflection on ChatGPT limitations rather than simple knowledge or comprehension questions."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["ludwig","maximilians","universitat","munchen","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","58","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","germany","munich","lmum","cms","cdn","lmu","de","med","handreichung","zum","umgang","mit","ki","use","of","by","students","und","nutzung","von","kunstlicher","intelligenz","ifkw","student","guidance","says","may","be","used","in","assessments","only","with","explicit","teacher","permission","if","no","given","must","assume","not","allowed","material","containing","personal","information","entered","into","systems","without","consent","unless","german","or","eu","data","protection","standards","are","met","treats","verbatim","minimally","changed","generated","text","proper","attribution","plagiarism","significant","unattributed","assessed","work","can","receive","grade","failed","medical","faculty","dissertation","doctoral","authors","disclose","when","where","to","what","extent","was","name","an","aid","affidavit","mark","sections","for","creation","editing","permitted","including","preliminary","tasks","completely","appropriately","documented","teaching","recommends","adapting","exam","questions","chatgpt","era","assessment","that","require","critical","reflection","on","limitations","rather","than","simple","knowledge","comprehension","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","academic","integrity","approved","tools","named","services","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"the-london-school-of-economics-and-political-science","entityName":"The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/the-london-school-of-economics-and-political-science","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/the-london-school-of-economics-and-political-science.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T14:03:47.000Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"London","aliases":["The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)","the-london-school-of-economics-and-political-science","QS 2026 56","LSE","LSEPS","ac.uk","info.lse.ac.uk","lse.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) is listed as QS 2026 rank 56. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Legal and Regulatory Guidance","Anthropic's Claude for Education - LSE","Generative AI - LSE","LSE Guidance on the use of Generative AI for research","LSE position on generative AI in assessment 2025/26","School position on generative AI - LSE"],"claimSummaries":["LSE states that making generative AI tools available does not endorse unrestricted use, and users should check their specific course, programme, or department policy.","LSE research guidance tells researchers not to share personal, sensitive, or confidential data with third-party AI tools unless the tools meet LSE privacy and security standards, and it strongly encourages Microsoft Copilot for privacy and security.","LSE requires departments or course convenors to classify authorised generative AI use in assessment as no authorised use, limited authorised use, or full authorised use, and to communicate the position to students.","LSE research guidance applies to LSE staff and students undertaking research and frames generative AI as a supportive tool while keeping researchers accountable for outputs.","LSE legal and regulatory guidance tells users not to put personal data, confidential or commercially sensitive data, or certain copyrighted content into external AI tools.","For 2025/26, LSE requested departments to add assessment safeguards, including observed assessment methods, to help assure degree integrity and prevent unfair competitive advantage from generative AI.","LSE lists Claude for Education as available to academic staff and students and Copilot with Commercial Data Protection as available to all staff and students.","LSE Claude for Education guidance says use is optional, student and staff data will not be used to train Anthropic models, and personal, operational, or confidential data must not be shared through Claude."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["the","london","school","of","economics","and","political","science","lse","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","56","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","review","state","united","kingdom","lseps","ac","uk","info","legal","regulatory","guidance","anthropic","claude","for","education","generative","on","use","research","position","in","assessment","2025","26","states","that","making","tools","available","does","not","endorse","unrestricted","users","should","check","their","specific","course","programme","or","department","tells","researchers","to","share","personal","sensitive","confidential","data","with","third","party","unless","meet","privacy","security","standards","it","strongly","encourages","microsoft","copilot","requires","departments","convenors","classify","authorised","no","limited","full","communicate","students","applies","staff","undertaking","frames","supportive","tool","while","keeping","accountable","outputs","put","commercially","certain","copyrighted","content","into","external","requested","add","safeguards","including","observed","methods","help","assure","degree","integrity","prevent","unfair","competitive","advantage","lists","academic","commercial","protection","all","says","optional","student","will","be","used","train","models","operational","must","shared","through","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","approved","named","services","teaching","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"the-hong-kong-polytechnic-university","entityName":"The Hong Kong Polytechnic University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/the-hong-kong-polytechnic-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/the-hong-kong-polytechnic-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T00:07:30.000Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":4,"country":"Hong Kong SAR","region":"Hong Kong","aliases":["The Hong Kong Polytechnic University","QS 2026 54","HKPU","edu.hk","polyu.edu.hk"],"fields":{"summary":"The Hong Kong Polytechnic University is listed as QS 2026 rank 54. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Integrity | Educational Development Centre","Generative AI | Educational Development Centre","Guidelines for Students on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)","M365 Copilot Chat, M365 Copilot, and Copilot Studio"],"claimSummaries":["PolyU takes an open and forward-looking stance on the use of GenAI tools as a positive and creative force in education, and expects that the usage of generative AI will become a normal part of learning, teaching, and assessment from 2023/24 Semester One.","PolyU guidelines state that work submitted for assessment must be the student's own work and must not be a copy or version of other people's work or AI-generated material.","PolyU states that while it embraces the use of GenAI tools in education, students must adhere to high standards of academic integrity in all forms of assessments.","PolyU allows the use of GenAI for take-home continuous assessment tasks, while also upholding the principle that students should be accountable for their own work.","PolyU provides M365 Copilot Chat to all staff and students via the PolyU Gen AI app, using the Microsoft Prometheus model built upon OpenAI GPT-4o."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["the","hong","kong","polytechnic","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","54","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","sar","hkpu","edu","hk","polyu","academic","integrity","educational","development","centre","generative","guidelines","for","students","on","use","of","artificial","intelligence","genai","m365","copilot","chat","studio","takes","an","open","forward","looking","stance","tools","positive","creative","force","in","education","expects","that","usage","will","become","normal","part","learning","teaching","assessment","2023","24","semester","one","work","submitted","must","be","student","own","not","copy","or","version","other","people","generated","material","states","while","it","embraces","adhere","to","high","standards","all","forms","assessments","allows","take","home","continuous","tasks","also","upholding","principle","should","accountable","their","provides","staff","via","gen","app","using","microsoft","prometheus","model","built","upon","openai","gpt","4o","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","approved","named","services","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"carnegie-mellon-university","entityName":"Carnegie Mellon University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/carnegie-mellon-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/carnegie-mellon-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T06:30:00.000Z","claimCount":7,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"Pittsburgh","aliases":["Carnegie Mellon University","QS 2026 52","CMU","cmu.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Carnegie Mellon University is listed as QS 2026 rank 52. Carnegie Mellon University has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Artificial Intelligence Guidance for Students","Carnegie Mellon University Policy on Academic Integrity","Examples of possible academic integrity policies that address student use of generative AI tools","Generative AI Tools FAQ","Protected AI Tools You Can Use","Use AI Safely at CMU"],"claimSummaries":["CMU Computing Services guidance says public AI tools should not be used with student data, confidential research, or sensitive administrative tasks.","CMU Computing Services lists protected AI tools available at CMU and states that when users sign in with Andrew ID and password, each listed tool is FERPA-compliant and will not use data to train AI models.","CMU Eberly Center guidance identifies a growing list of CMU-vetted generative AI tools that are FERPA compliant for teaching and learning when used as instructed.","CMU Eberly Center guidance recommends extreme caution when using AI-detection tools because no such tools have been established as accurate.","CMU Eberly Center guidance says instructors should clarify whether AI tools count as authorized or unauthorized assistance and how students should cite AI or human assistance.","CMU academic-integrity policy requires instructor authorization for collaboration or assistance on graded work and requires citation of all sources.","CMU career guidance tells student job seekers that AI tools should aid revisions and editing rather than replace original words, thinking, information, and writing."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["carnegie","mellon","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","52","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","pittsburgh","cmu","edu","artificial","intelligence","guidance","for","students","on","academic","integrity","examples","of","possible","policies","that","address","student","use","generative","tools","faq","protected","you","can","safely","at","computing","services","says","should","not","be","used","with","data","confidential","research","or","sensitive","administrative","tasks","lists","available","when","users","sign","in","andrew","id","password","each","tool","ferpa","compliant","will","to","train","models","eberly","center","identifies","growing","list","vetted","are","teaching","learning","instructed","recommends","extreme","caution","using","detection","because","no","such","have","been","established","accurate","instructors","clarify","whether","count","authorized","unauthorized","assistance","how","cite","human","requires","instructor","authorization","collaboration","graded","work","citation","all","sources","career","tells","job","seekers","aid","revisions","editing","rather","than","replace","words","thinking","information","writing","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","approved","named","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"yonsei-university","entityName":"Yonsei University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/yonsei-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/yonsei-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.93,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T06:30:00.000Z","claimCount":4,"sourceCount":1,"country":"South Korea","region":"Seoul","aliases":["Yonsei University","QS 2026 50","YU","ac.kr","socsci.yonsei.ac.kr"],"fields":{"summary":"Yonsei University is listed as QS 2026 rank 50. Yonsei University has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 1 official source attribution. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Research Ethics Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI"],"claimSummaries":["Yonsei University Research Ethics Center guidance warns users not to enter confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable information into generative AI tools.","Yonsei University Research Ethics Center guidance says students using generative AI in academic work must provide clear and accurate citations.","Yonsei University Research Ethics Center guidance says generative AI use in courses should be based on clear agreement between instructors and learners, with instructors giving minimum guidance when use is permitted.","Yonsei University Research Ethics Center guidance tells students that generative AI may be permitted or restricted depending on the course and that students should consult the syllabus and course policies."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["yonsei","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","50","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attribution","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","south","korea","seoul","yu","ac","kr","socsci","research","ethics","guidelines","for","use","of","generative","center","guidance","warns","users","not","to","enter","confidential","sensitive","or","personally","identifiable","information","into","tools","says","students","using","in","academic","work","must","provide","clear","accurate","citations","courses","should","be","based","on","agreement","between","instructors","learners","with","giving","minimum","when","permitted","tells","that","may","restricted","depending","course","consult","syllabus","policies","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","integrity","approved","named","services","teaching","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-bristol","entityName":"University of Bristol","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-bristol","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-bristol.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.97,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T05:50:00Z","claimCount":4,"sourceCount":4,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"Bristol","aliases":["University of Bristol","QS 2026 51","UB","ac.uk","bristol.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Bristol is listed as QS 2026 rank 51. University of Bristol has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic integrity | Current students | University of Bristol","Guidance for PGR students on the use of AI tools in thesis writing","Guidance on AI | Bristol Institute For Learning and Teaching","Using artificial intelligence (AI) in assessments and for studying"],"claimSummaries":["PGR students at University of Bristol are not permitted to use generative AI tools such as ChatGPT to write any text used in their thesis or APM reports, as research degree students must demonstrate ability to write about research in their own words.","University of Bristol considers the use of AI or translation tools to be cheating if used for more than generating the occasional short phrase within a sentence or checking basic grammar and spelling, unless assessment instructions allow more comprehensive use.","University of Bristol has published official guidance on generative AI use in taught degree programmes, stating that generative AI should not replace activities that develop intellectual rigour, student agency, and students' capacity to work through complex problems themselves.","University of Bristol uses a four-category system for AI use in assessments: Category 1 (prohibited - no AI use), Category 2 (minimal - spelling/grammar only, default), Category 3 (selective - certain tasks as specified), and Category 4 (integral - AI required for assessment)."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","bristol","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","51","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","ub","ac","uk","academic","integrity","current","students","guidance","for","pgr","on","use","tools","in","thesis","writing","institute","learning","teaching","using","artificial","intelligence","assessments","studying","at","are","not","permitted","to","generative","such","chatgpt","write","any","text","used","their","or","apm","reports","research","degree","must","demonstrate","ability","about","own","words","considers","translation","be","cheating","if","more","than","generating","occasional","short","phrase","within","sentence","checking","basic","grammar","spelling","unless","assessment","instructions","allow","comprehensive","published","taught","programmes","stating","that","should","replace","activities","develop","intellectual","rigour","student","agency","capacity","work","through","complex","problems","themselves","uses","four","category","system","prohibited","no","minimal","only","default","selective","certain","tasks","specified","integral","required","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","approved","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"new-york-university","entityName":"New York University (NYU)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/new-york-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/new-york-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-12T00:10:00Z","claimCount":4,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"New York City","aliases":["New York University (NYU)","new-york-university","QS 2026 55","NYU","guides.nyu.edu","nyu.edu","steinhardt.nyu.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"New York University (NYU) is listed as QS 2026 rank 55. New York University (NYU) has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Integrity and Syllabus Support","Frequently Asked Questions About Teaching and AI - NYU","Generative AI Tools for Academic Research: An Introduction","NYU Generative AI Guidance","Student Learning with Generative AI - NYU","Teaching with Generative AI - NYU"],"claimSummaries":["NYU offers access and support for Google's Gemini and NotebookLM to faculty, staff, and students through institutional accounts.","NYU's policy requires instructor approval for student AI use, student compliance with instructor limitations, and adherence to the Academic Integrity Policy.","NYU does not license or endorse AI detection tools due to accuracy and reliability concerns.","NYU institutional accounts for Gemini and NotebookLM do not train AI models on user data and do not log queries or answers."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["new","york","university","nyu","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","55","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","city","guides","edu","steinhardt","academic","integrity","syllabus","support","frequently","asked","questions","about","teaching","generative","tools","for","research","an","introduction","guidance","student","learning","with","offers","access","google","gemini","notebooklm","to","faculty","staff","students","through","institutional","accounts","requires","instructor","approval","use","compliance","limitations","adherence","does","not","license","or","endorse","detection","due","accuracy","reliability","concerns","do","train","models","on","user","data","log","queries","answers","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","approved","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"shanghai-jiao-tong-university","entityName":"Shanghai Jiao Tong University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/shanghai-jiao-tong-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/shanghai-jiao-tong-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T10:32:00Z","claimCount":4,"sourceCount":3,"country":"China (Mainland)","region":"Shanghai","aliases":["Shanghai Jiao Tong University","QS 2026 =47","SJTU","ctld.sjtu.edu.cn","edu.cn","sjtu.edu.cn"],"fields":{"summary":"Shanghai Jiao Tong University is listed as QS 2026 rank =47. Shanghai Jiao Tong University has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["上海交通大学关于在教育教学中使用 AI 的规范（试行版）","生成式人工智能教师使用指南","规范学生使用人工智能工具的教师指南"],"claimSummaries":["上海交通大学将高等教育教学领域的人工智能应用按应用风险划分为四种类型:禁止使用、有限使用、鼓励使用、开放使用。","上海交通大学规定教师是 AI+ 教学设计的第一责任人，应在遵守教育教学相关规章制度前提下合理、合规、有效使用人工智能技术产品或服务，并围绕场景应用、风险提示、应急预案等环节设置具体规范。","上海交通大学规定学生应了解并遵守各课程的人工智能使用规范，在课堂学习、作业反馈等环节遵循教学计划、知识产权法律法规和学术诚信要求；未经授权使用在线学习支持平台等行为被列为学术不端的一类。","上海交通大学“AI+教育教学”规范列出基本原则，其中包括技术以人为本、以学为本，发展有利于学生知识能力增长和教师教学育人的人工智能技术。"],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["shanghai","jiao","tong","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","47","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","china","mainland","sjtu","ctld","edu","cn","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","academic","integrity","approved","tools","named","services","teaching","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"universite-psl","entityName":"Université PSL","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/universite-psl","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/universite-psl.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T10:00:00.000Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":2,"country":"France","region":"Paris","aliases":["Université PSL","QS 2026 28","UP","bu.dauphine.psl.eu","psl.eu","static.psl.eu"],"fields":{"summary":"Université PSL is listed as QS 2026 rank 28. Université PSL has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 2 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Règlement de la scolarité de l'Université PSL","Utiliser l'intelligence artificielle dans sa recherche : des recommandations pour le respect de l'intégrité scientifique"],"claimSummaries":["Université PSL academic regulations state that, when an instructor authorizes the use of AI-based tools such as ChatGPT, that use must be explicitly disclosed like a source citation; failure to disclose AI use is considered plagiarism and sanctioned as such.","PSL-affiliated guidance recommends researchers be transparent about AI use by indicating the tool used, its version, and the context of use, and notes that the prompt and result can also be documented.","PSL-affiliated guidance states that generative AI tools cannot be considered co-authors of scientific work, and users retain full responsibility for AI-generated content, codes, images, and texts.","PSL-affiliated guidance advises that personal data should not be shared with third parties when generative AI is used, and that generated text should be checked so it does not constitute plagiarism or contain personal data.","PSL-affiliated guidance notes that generative AI can undermine research reproducibility because its codes and algorithms may be unknown and change regularly, and because probabilistic generation can produce variable responses."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["universite","psl","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","28","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","france","paris","up","bu","dauphine","eu","static","reglement","de","la","scolarite","utiliser","intelligence","artificielle","dans","sa","recherche","des","recommandations","pour","le","respect","integrite","scientifique","academic","regulations","that","when","an","instructor","authorizes","use","of","based","tools","such","chatgpt","must","be","explicitly","disclosed","like","citation","failure","to","disclose","considered","plagiarism","sanctioned","affiliated","guidance","recommends","researchers","transparent","about","by","indicating","tool","used","its","version","context","notes","prompt","result","can","also","documented","states","generative","cannot","co","authors","scientific","work","users","retain","full","responsibility","for","generated","content","codes","images","texts","advises","personal","data","should","not","shared","with","third","parties","text","checked","so","it","does","constitute","or","contain","undermine","research","reproducibility","because","algorithms","may","unknown","change","regularly","probabilistic","generation","produce","variable","responses","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","integrity","approved","named","services","teaching","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-amsterdam","entityName":"University of Amsterdam","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-amsterdam","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-amsterdam.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T10:24:00Z","claimCount":4,"sourceCount":5,"country":"Netherlands","region":"Amsterdam","aliases":["University of Amsterdam","QS 2026 53","UA","tlc.uva.nl","uva.nl"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Amsterdam is listed as QS 2026 rank 53. University of Amsterdam has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic integrity at the UvA","AI in education - University of Amsterdam","Policy framework and guidelines on GenAI in education","Responsible use of GenAI (resources)","VU-UvA task force on AI in education"],"claimSummaries":["The University of Amsterdam has a policy framework for Generative AI in education that provides central guidelines for responsible use of GenAI based on scientific integrity, with room for faculties and programmes to translate the policy into their own educational practice.","At the UvA, both the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity apply, which outline the principles and standards for integrity in research and teaching.","The University of Amsterdam is developing its own AI chat environment called UvA AI Chat, which is similar to ChatGPT but is fully self-managed and specifically designed for UvA students, lecturers and staff.","The UvA and VU task force on AI in education has produced criteria for software to ensure academic integrity, and expects students to be transparent about how they have applied generative AI in their own learning and work."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","amsterdam","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","53","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","netherlands","ua","tlc","uva","nl","academic","integrity","at","in","education","framework","guidelines","on","genai","responsible","use","resources","vu","task","force","for","generative","that","provides","central","based","scientific","with","room","faculties","programmes","to","translate","into","their","own","educational","practice","both","code","conduct","research","european","apply","which","outline","principles","standards","teaching","developing","its","chat","environment","called","similar","chatgpt","but","fully","self","managed","specifically","designed","students","lecturers","staff","produced","criteria","software","ensure","expects","be","transparent","about","how","they","have","applied","learning","work","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","approved","tools","named","services","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"fudan-university","entityName":"Fudan University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/fudan-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/fudan-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.82,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T10:12:00Z","claimCount":1,"sourceCount":2,"country":"China (Mainland)","region":"Shanghai","aliases":["Fudan University","QS 2026 30","FU","edu.cn","it.fudan.edu.cn","stuaff.fudan.edu.cn"],"fields":{"summary":"Fudan University is listed as QS 2026 rank 30. Fudan University has 1 source-backed AI policy claim record from 2 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["【项目回顾】论文通关！手把手教你搞定学术写作","复旦大学关于在本科毕业论文（设计）中使用 AI 工具的规定（试行）"],"claimSummaries":["复旦大学学生工作部公开页面援引《复旦大学关于在本科毕业论文(设计)中使用 AI 工具的规定(试行)》称，本科毕业论文写作中使用 AI 工具辅助需经老师同意并披露使用情况，数据收集、核心观点提炼等创新工作不可依赖 AI，涉密和隐私内容禁止使用 AI。"],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["fudan","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","30","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","record","from","official","attributions","the","public","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","china","mainland","shanghai","fu","edu","cn","it","stuaff","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","academic","integrity","approved","tools","named","services","teaching","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-toronto","entityName":"University of Toronto","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-toronto","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-toronto.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T09:41:00.000Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":7,"country":"Canada","region":"Toronto","aliases":["University of Toronto","QS 2026 29","UT","academicintegrity.utoronto.ca","ai.utoronto.ca","security.utoronto.ca","sgs.utoronto.ca","teaching.utoronto.ca","utoronto.ca","viceprovostundergrad.utoronto.ca"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Toronto is listed as QS 2026 rank 29. University of Toronto has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Generative AI Tools","Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom: FAQ's","Guidance on the Appropriate Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Graduate Academic Milestones","Guidelines - Toward an AI-ready University","Teaching with Generative AI at U of T","Use artificial intelligence intelligently","Using ChatGPT or other generative AI tool on a marked assessment"],"claimSummaries":["University of Toronto considers use of generative AI tools on marked assessments without instructor permission to be use of an unauthorized aid under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.","University of Toronto teaching guidance says Microsoft Copilot is the recommended generative AI tool to use at U of T and, when signed in with University credentials, conforms to U of T privacy and security standards for use with up to level 3 data.","University of Toronto School of Graduate Studies recommends that graduate students seek and document unambiguous approval from their supervisor(s) and supervisory committee before using generative AI tools in research, writing, or other scholarly activities relevant to graduate academic milestones.","University of Toronto recommends that instructors include a statement on their syllabus that informs students about expectations with respect to the use of AI, and provides sample syllabus statements for instructors to use.","University of Toronto Information Security guidelines state that no data should be provided to generative AI if any part of that data should not be included in results produced by that system, and users must verify AI tools have been assessed by the university as suitable for the data classification level before sharing personal information or university data classified as level 2, 3 or 4."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","toronto","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","29","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","canada","ut","academicintegrity","utoronto","ca","security","sgs","teaching","viceprovostundergrad","generative","tools","artificial","intelligence","in","classroom","faq","guidance","on","appropriate","use","for","graduate","academic","milestones","guidelines","toward","an","ready","with","at","intelligently","using","chatgpt","or","other","tool","marked","assessment","considers","assessments","without","instructor","permission","to","be","unauthorized","aid","under","code","behaviour","matters","says","microsoft","copilot","recommended","when","signed","credentials","conforms","privacy","standards","up","level","data","school","studies","recommends","that","students","seek","document","unambiguous","approval","their","supervisor","supervisory","committee","before","research","writing","scholarly","activities","relevant","instructors","include","statement","syllabus","informs","about","expectations","respect","provides","sample","statements","information","no","should","provided","if","any","part","not","included","results","produced","by","system","users","must","verify","have","been","assessed","suitable","classification","sharing","personal","classified","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","integrity","approved","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"delft-university-of-technology","entityName":"Delft University of Technology","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/delft-university-of-technology","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/delft-university-of-technology.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.94,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T09:30:00Z","claimCount":1,"sourceCount":1,"country":"Netherlands","region":"Delft","aliases":["Delft University of Technology","QS 2026 =47","DUT","tudelft.nl"],"fields":{"summary":"Delft University of Technology is listed as QS 2026 rank =47. Delft University of Technology has 1 source-backed AI policy claim record from 1 official source attribution. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI in education | Teaching Support"],"claimSummaries":["TU Delft teaching guidance says Microsoft Copilot Chat, after login with NetID, is currently the only generative AI tool permitted for use at TU Delft for education."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["delft","university","of","technology","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","47","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","record","from","official","attribution","the","public","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","netherlands","dut","tudelft","nl","in","education","teaching","support","tu","guidance","says","microsoft","copilot","chat","after","login","with","netid","currently","only","generative","tool","permitted","for","use","at","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","academic","integrity","approved","tools","named","services","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"zhejiang-university","entityName":"Zhejiang University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/zhejiang-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/zhejiang-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.94,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T00:45:00Z","claimCount":1,"sourceCount":1,"country":"China (Mainland)","region":"Hangzhou","aliases":["Zhejiang University","QS 2026 49","ZU","edu.cn","jzus.zju.edu.cn"],"fields":{"summary":"Zhejiang University is listed as QS 2026 rank 49. Zhejiang University has 1 source-backed AI policy claim record from 1 official source attribution. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Journal of Zhejiang University - Policy Statement and Author Disclosure Requirements for the Use of Generative AI"],"claimSummaries":["Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE policy says AI or large language models cannot be listed as manuscript authors or co-authors, authors remain responsible for AI-assisted content, and substantive generative AI use in manuscript preparation must be disclosed explicitly and in detail."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["zhejiang","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","49","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","record","from","official","attribution","the","public","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","china","mainland","hangzhou","zu","edu","cn","jzus","zju","journal","of","statement","author","disclosure","requirements","for","use","generative","science","says","or","large","models","cannot","be","manuscript","authors","co","remain","responsible","assisted","content","substantive","in","preparation","must","disclosed","explicitly","detail","presence","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","academic","integrity","approved","tools","named","services","teaching","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"ucla","entityName":"University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/ucla","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/ucla.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.94,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T00:05:00Z","claimCount":4,"sourceCount":3,"country":"United States","region":"Los Angeles","aliases":["University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)","ucla","QS 2026 46","dts.ucla.edu","senate.ucla.edu","ucla.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is listed as QS 2026 rank 46. University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Use and Recommendation Guide","Guiding Principles for Responsible Use","Teaching Guidance for ChatGPT and Related AI Developments"],"claimSummaries":["UCLA Academic Senate guidance quotes the Student Conduct Code requirement that submissions must be the student’s own work or clearly acknowledge the source, and says that unless an instructor indicates otherwise, use of ChatGPT or other AI tools for course assignments is akin to receiving assistance from another person.","UCLA DTS guidance says users may not input FERPA-protected student information, HIPPA/HIPAA-protected health data, employee personnel/performance data, unpublished research/IP/grant proposals, or export-controlled or restricted data into AI tools unless explicitly approved in a secure environment.","UCLA DTS AI guidance lists a subset of available generative AI tools including Microsoft Copilot and M365 Copilot, Google Gemini, OpenAI ChatGPT Enterprise, Google Notebook LM, AWS Bedrock models, and Zoom AI Companion.","UCLA Academic Senate guidance encourages instructors to clarify and communicate expectations to students and to consider incorporating academic integrity policies into the syllabus."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["ucla","university","of","california","los","angeles","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","46","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","dts","edu","senate","use","recommendation","guide","guiding","principles","for","responsible","teaching","guidance","chatgpt","related","developments","academic","quotes","student","conduct","code","requirement","that","submissions","must","be","own","work","or","clearly","acknowledge","says","unless","an","instructor","indicates","otherwise","other","tools","course","assignments","akin","to","receiving","assistance","another","person","users","may","not","input","ferpa","protected","information","hippa","hipaa","health","data","employee","personnel","performance","unpublished","research","ip","grant","proposals","export","controlled","restricted","into","explicitly","approved","in","secure","environment","lists","subset","available","generative","including","microsoft","copilot","m365","google","gemini","openai","enterprise","notebook","lm","aws","bedrock","models","zoom","companion","encourages","instructors","clarify","communicate","expectations","students","consider","incorporating","integrity","policies","syllabus","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"princeton-university","entityName":"Princeton University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/princeton-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/princeton-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T22:22:55.404Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":8,"country":"United States","region":"Princeton","aliases":["Princeton University","QS 2026 =25","PU","mcgraw.princeton.edu","odoc.princeton.edu","oit.princeton.edu","princeton.edu","scholarlyintegrity.princeton.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Princeton University is listed as QS 2026 rank =25. Princeton University has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 8 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Course Procedures & Policies","Disclosing Generative AI","Generative AI and Our Classrooms","Generative AI at Princeton","Generative AI in Teaching and Learning Fall 2023, Faculty and Student Memo","Generative AI Tools Use Policy","Guidance on AI/ChatGPT","Microsoft Copilot at Princeton University"],"claimSummaries":["Princeton University requires that only University-licensed generative AI tools should be used with University Information classified as Internal or Confidential, and the use of publicly available generative AI tools in conjunction with such Princeton Information is not permitted by the University.","Princeton University requires students to disclose the use of generative AI when permitted by the instructor, rather than cite or acknowledge the use, since generative AI is an algorithm rather than a source (Rights, Rules, Responsibilities section 2.4.7).","Princeton University states that inappropriate uses of generative AI on any work submitted to fulfill an academic requirement, including directly copying the output, representing output as the student's own, exceeding instructor parameters, or failing to disclose its use, would constitute violations of academic integrity (Rights, Rules, Responsibilities section 2.4.6).","Princeton University states that the decision to allow, limit, or prohibit generative AI in a course or in undergraduate independent work remains with the faculty; faculty members have the discretion to set their own generative AI policy for their courses.","Princeton University requires faculty to set clear expectations for whether, when, and how generative AI can be used and state those expectations in the course syllabus.","Princeton University's McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning recommends that faculty do not use AI detection software to determine if student work is AI-generated, stating that detection tools are unreliable and biased.","Princeton University's Office of Information Technology states that Microsoft Copilot is currently the only generative AI tool made available by OIT, and that when logged in with a Princeton University account, Copilot provides Enterprise Data Protection where prompts and responses are not used to train the underlying large language models and chat data is encrypted.","Princeton University's OIT guidance states that non-public Princeton data should not be used in public generative AI tools, and that University Information classified as Restricted must not be used with any AI tool."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["princeton","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","25","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","pu","mcgraw","edu","odoc","oit","scholarlyintegrity","course","procedures","policies","disclosing","generative","our","classrooms","at","in","teaching","learning","fall","2023","faculty","student","memo","tools","use","guidance","on","chatgpt","microsoft","copilot","requires","that","only","licensed","should","be","used","with","information","classified","internal","or","confidential","of","publicly","available","conjunction","such","not","permitted","by","students","to","disclose","when","instructor","rather","than","cite","acknowledge","since","an","algorithm","rights","rules","responsibilities","section","inappropriate","uses","any","work","submitted","fulfill","academic","requirement","including","directly","copying","output","representing","own","exceeding","parameters","failing","its","would","constitute","violations","integrity","decision","allow","limit","prohibit","undergraduate","independent","remains","members","have","discretion","set","their","for","courses","clear","expectations","whether","how","can","those","syllabus","center","recommends","do","detection","software","determine","if","generated","stating","are","unreliable","biased","office","technology","currently","tool","made","logged","account","provides","enterprise","data","protection","where","prompts","responses","train","underlying","large","models","chat","encrypted","non","restricted","must","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","approved","named","services","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"technical-university-of-munich","entityName":"Technical University of Munich","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/technical-university-of-munich","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/technical-university-of-munich.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.94,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T20:44:45.340Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":1,"country":"Germany","region":"Munich","aliases":["Technical University of Munich","QS 2026 =22","TUM","prolehre.tum.de","tum.de"],"fields":{"summary":"Technical University of Munich is listed as QS 2026 rank =22. Technical University of Munich has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 1 official source attribution. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Entscheidungshilfe für den KI-Einsatz in der Lehre"],"claimSummaries":["TUM ProLehre guidance says instructors at TUM have broad discretion when deciding whether and how AI is used in teaching, and that related rules should be didactically grounded and communicated transparently to students.","When AI use is restricted, TUM ProLehre guidance tells instructors to clearly define what AI may be used for, what it may not be used for, and to discuss this with students.","TUM ProLehre guidance recommends starting AI-use decisions from the intended learning outcomes and whether AI use supports, complements, or hinders those competencies.","TUM ProLehre guidance says reliable control of AI use is difficult to impossible, and recommends designing assessments so unauthorized AI use does not provide a decisive advantage.","TUM ProLehre guidance says students often need targeted training in competent AI use, including AI functions, limits, common errors, biases, misinformation, and critical evaluation of AI outputs."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["technical","university","of","munich","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","22","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attribution","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","germany","tum","prolehre","de","entscheidungshilfe","fur","den","ki","einsatz","in","der","lehre","guidance","says","instructors","at","have","broad","discretion","when","deciding","whether","how","used","teaching","that","related","rules","should","be","didactically","grounded","communicated","transparently","to","students","use","restricted","tells","clearly","define","what","may","for","it","not","discuss","this","with","recommends","starting","decisions","intended","learning","outcomes","supports","complements","or","hinders","those","competencies","reliable","control","difficult","impossible","designing","assessments","so","unauthorized","does","provide","decisive","advantage","often","need","targeted","training","competent","including","functions","limits","common","errors","biases","misinformation","critical","evaluation","outputs","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","academic","integrity","approved","tools","named","services","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"epfl","entityName":"EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/epfl","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/epfl.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T15:10:00Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":6,"country":"Switzerland","region":"Lausanne","aliases":["EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne","epfl","QS 2026 =22","EPFDL","epfl.ch"],"fields":{"summary":"EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne is listed as QS 2026 rank =22. EPFL – École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI tools and Student Assessment","Artificial intelligence and scientific information","Conseils pour l'utilisation de l'IA générative dans la recherche et l'éducation","Guidelines for the use of AI in teaching at EPFL","Guidelines for using (Gen)AI in studying","Tips for the use of generative AI in research and education"],"claimSummaries":["EPFL advises students not to input confidential, private or personal information into generative AI tools. When using generative AI tools, students are sharing data with private companies and lose control over it.","EPFL requires students to disclose the use of AI tools in assessment work. EPFL rules (Lex 1.3.3, Article 4) require that all assessment material that is not the student's personal and original contribution must be recognizable as such.","EPFL recommends that teachers make explicit to students what AI use is not legitimate in a course and what rules accompany AI tool use.","EPFL considers the use of AI-generated content in assignments without proper attribution as AI plagiarism. Tools that detect AI-generated content are not admissible as stand-alone evidence of AI plagiarism due to high risk of false positives.","EPFL guidance says enterprise licenses such as Microsoft 365 Copilot via EPFL account are currently not a secure solution for processing regulated data because EPFL has not signed a data processing agreement guaranteeing aligned data protection measures."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["epfl","ecole","polytechnique","federale","de","lausanne","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","22","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","switzerland","epfdl","ch","tools","student","assessment","artificial","intelligence","scientific","information","conseils","pour","utilisation","ia","generative","dans","la","recherche","et","education","guidelines","for","use","of","in","teaching","at","using","gen","studying","tips","research","advises","students","not","to","input","confidential","private","or","personal","into","when","are","sharing","data","with","companies","lose","control","over","it","requires","disclose","work","rules","lex","article","require","that","all","material","contribution","must","be","recognizable","such","recommends","teachers","make","explicit","what","legitimate","course","accompany","tool","considers","generated","content","assignments","without","proper","attribution","plagiarism","detect","admissible","stand","alone","due","high","risk","false","positives","guidance","says","enterprise","licenses","microsoft","365","copilot","via","account","currently","secure","solution","processing","regulated","because","signed","agreement","guaranteeing","aligned","protection","measures","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","academic","integrity","approved","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-sydney","entityName":"The University of Sydney","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-sydney","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-sydney.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.97,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T14:23:00.000Z","claimCount":10,"sourceCount":8,"country":"Australia","region":"Sydney","aliases":["The University of Sydney","university-of-sydney","QS 2026 =25","US","edu.au","educational-innovation.sydney.edu.au","sydney.edu.au"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Sydney is listed as QS 2026 rank =25. The University of Sydney has 10 source-backed AI policy claim records from 8 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic integrity breaches","Aligning our assessments to the age of generative AI","Artificial intelligence - Academic integrity","Assessment Procedures","Frequently asked questions about generative AI at Sydney","University of Sydney's AI assessment policy: protecting integrity and empowering students","Using AI to learn","Using artificial intelligence tools responsibly"],"claimSummaries":["From Semester 1 2025, the default position in the University of Sydney Academic Integrity Policy has been reversed: except for supervised examinations and supervised in-semester tests, students may use automated writing tools or generative AI to complete assessments unless expressly prohibited by the unit coordinator.","The University of Sydney's Academic Integrity Policy 2022 states it is an academic integrity breach to inappropriately generate content using artificial intelligence to complete an assessment task, and submitting an assessment generated by AI may be considered contract cheating.","The University of Sydney Academic Integrity Policy 2022 states students may only use assistance, including automated writing tools, if the unit of study outline expressly permits it, and must acknowledge assistance provided when preparing submitted work.","The University of Sydney has adopted a 'two-lane approach' to assessment: Lane 1 comprises secure, in-person supervised assessments to assure learning, and Lane 2 comprises open assessments that support and scaffold the use of all available and relevant tools including generative AI.","University of Sydney guidance states that misusing generative AI can breach the Academic Integrity Policy 2022, with examples including using AI in assessments where prohibited, submitting AI-generated work without acknowledgment, and inputting University teaching materials or personal information into AI tools.","University of Sydney states that students who use AI in assessments are required to acknowledge it, including any tools that use generative AI such as translation tools, paraphrasing tools or referencing tools; failing to provide acknowledgement can lead to a breach of the Academic Integrity Policy 2022.","The University of Sydney's generative AI guardrails state that confidential, personal, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive information should not be entered into AI tools.","The University of Sydney provides all students free access to Microsoft Copilot for Web, and recommends using University-endorsed tools like Copilot with protected mode via UniKey login rather than public AI tools.","The University of Sydney advises that Turnitin's AI detection tool may be used if a marker suspects AI-generated work where its use was not permitted or not acknowledged, but the AI detector score would not be the only evidence relied upon for an academic integrity case.","The University of Sydney Assessment Procedures state that unit of study coordinators will specify if, and which, artificial intelligence tools are permitted for each assessment and how their use must be acknowledged."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","sydney","the","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","25","has","10","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","australia","us","edu","au","educational","innovation","academic","integrity","breaches","aligning","our","assessments","to","age","generative","artificial","intelligence","assessment","procedures","frequently","asked","questions","about","at","protecting","empowering","students","using","learn","tools","responsibly","semester","2025","default","position","in","been","reversed","except","for","supervised","examinations","tests","may","use","automated","writing","or","complete","unless","expressly","prohibited","by","unit","coordinator","2022","states","it","an","breach","inappropriately","generate","content","task","submitting","generated","be","considered","contract","cheating","only","assistance","including","if","study","outline","permits","must","acknowledge","provided","when","preparing","submitted","work","adopted","two","lane","approach","comprises","secure","person","assure","learning","open","that","support","scaffold","all","available","relevant","guidance","misusing","can","with","examples","where","without","acknowledgment","inputting","teaching","materials","personal","information","into","who","are","required","any","such","translation","paraphrasing","referencing","failing","provide","acknowledgement","lead","guardrails","confidential","proprietary","otherwise","sensitive","should","not","entered","provides","free","access","microsoft","copilot","web","recommends","endorsed","like","protected","mode","via","unikey","login","rather","than","advises","turnitin","detection","tool","used","marker","suspects","its","was","permitted","acknowledged","but","detector","score","would","relied","upon","case","coordinators","will","specify","which","each","how","their","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","approved","named","services","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"mcgill-university","entityName":"McGill University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/mcgill-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/mcgill-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-11T00:00:00.000Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":5,"country":"Canada","region":"Montreal","aliases":["McGill University","QS 2026 27","MU","mcgill.ca","teachingkb.mcgill.ca"],"fields":{"summary":"McGill University is listed as QS 2026 rank 27. McGill University has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Guidelines","AI tools at McGill","Microsoft Copilot and general guidelines for using generative AI tools","Principles on Generative AI in Teaching and Learning at McGill","Using generative AI in teaching and learning"],"claimSummaries":["McGill lists Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat as an available AI tool for staff, faculty, and students, and says a secure version with enterprise data protection is available for all McGill users.","McGill explicitly rejects DeepSeek AI for McGill-managed or research-funded devices, rejects Read.AI and other AI meeting bots for McGill use, and says tools not mentioned in the available AI tools list are automatically considered rejected.","McGill guidance says users should mitigate potential privacy concerns by removing personally identifying information when using AI tools, be careful with sensitive or restricted material, and avoid using Personal Health Information (PHI) or Payment Card Industry (PCI) data with AI tools.","McGill's Provost-endorsed principles state that instructors remain responsible for comporting themselves according to the highest standards of academic integrity in their use of generative AI tools. Instructors must be explicit in course outlines about the expectations for use of generative AI tools and may set limits on their use in assessment tasks.","McGill recommends that instructors explain to students in their course outline what the appropriate use or non-use is of generative AI tools in the context of that course. The use or non-use of these tools should align with the learning outcomes associated with the course."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["mcgill","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","27","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","canada","montreal","mu","ca","teachingkb","guidelines","tools","at","microsoft","copilot","general","for","using","generative","principles","on","in","teaching","learning","lists","365","chat","an","available","tool","staff","faculty","students","says","secure","version","with","enterprise","data","protection","all","users","explicitly","rejects","deepseek","managed","or","research","funded","devices","read","other","meeting","bots","use","not","mentioned","list","are","automatically","considered","rejected","guidance","should","mitigate","potential","privacy","concerns","by","removing","personally","identifying","information","when","be","careful","sensitive","restricted","material","avoid","personal","health","phi","payment","card","industry","pci","provost","endorsed","that","instructors","remain","responsible","comporting","themselves","according","to","highest","standards","of","academic","integrity","their","must","explicit","course","outlines","about","expectations","may","set","limits","assessment","tasks","recommends","explain","outline","what","appropriate","non","context","these","align","outcomes","associated","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","approved","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"manchester","entityName":"The University of Manchester","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/manchester","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/manchester.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T14:20:00Z","claimCount":12,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"Manchester","aliases":["The University of Manchester","manchester","QS 2026 35","UM","ac.uk","elearning.bmh.manchester.ac.uk","itservices.manchester.ac.uk","staffnet.manchester.ac.uk","subjects.library.manchester.ac.uk","teachingcollege.fse.manchester.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Manchester is listed as QS 2026 rank 35. The University of Manchester has 12 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Guidance for Learners - BMH Technology Enhanced Learning","Approved Tools | AI Hub - StaffNet - The University of Manchester","Artificial Intelligence and Teaching and Learning - Teaching College","Copilot - IT Services - The University of Manchester","Guidelines | AI Hub - StaffNet - The University of Manchester","Referencing guide at the University of Manchester: AI and referencing"],"claimSummaries":["The University of Manchester does not ban generative AI. The university's position is that when used appropriately, AI tools have the potential to enhance teaching and learning, and can support inclusivity and accessibility.","Manchester has adopted five core principles for AI use: transparency, accountability, competence, responsible use, and respect. All staff and students using or developing AI are personally responsible for adhering to these.","The University of Manchester is the world's first university to deploy equitable Microsoft 365 Copilot access and training across its entire community, with 65,000 colleagues and students receiving the full M365 Copilot suite.","Copilot Chat is available to everyone with a University of Manchester account. The university has a contractual agreement with Microsoft ensuring prompts and uploaded files are private, protected by the same security and encryption as emails and OneDrive. The AI system does not learn from user prompts or data.","Submitting work created by generative AI as one's own, or misrepresenting understanding of the subject, is plagiarism at Manchester and will be dealt with in accordance with the University's Academic Malpractice Procedure.","Tools to detect AI-generated content are unreliable and biased and cannot be relied on to identify academic malpractice in summative assessment at Manchester. Output from such tools cannot currently be used as evidence of malpractice.","Students at Manchester must cite or acknowledge the outputs of generative AI tools when they use them in their work, including quoting, summarising, paraphrasing, editing, translating, data processing, re-writing, and idea generation.","University-approved enterprise AI tools (Microsoft Copilot Chat for all, M365 Copilot via licences) must be used whenever there is a risk of inappropriate disclosure. Free-to-use public AI services should only be used with extreme caution due to data disclosure risks.","With approval at School level, Manchester's default AI position may be broadened or narrowed for specific course units or assignments. Students must be given detailed information explaining the rationale and what is and is not allowed.","Using an AI tool to correct grammar or spelling is acceptable at Manchester, but students should ensure that use of the tool does not result in substantive changes to the content or meaning of their work.","Manchester recognises the potential of AI to power research and innovation. Any use of AI to generate data should be completely transparent. Using AI to fabricate or manipulate data without clear declaration constitutes research misconduct.","The University recommends Microsoft Copilot for AI-related work. It is GDPR-compliant and protects University and personal data. Staff should always carefully consider whether adding personal information into an AI tool is necessary."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["manchester","the","university","of","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","35","has","12","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","um","ac","uk","elearning","bmh","itservices","staffnet","subjects","library","teachingcollege","fse","guidance","for","learners","technology","enhanced","learning","approved","tools","hub","artificial","intelligence","teaching","college","copilot","it","services","guidelines","referencing","guide","at","does","not","ban","generative","position","that","when","used","appropriately","have","potential","to","enhance","can","support","inclusivity","accessibility","adopted","five","core","principles","use","transparency","accountability","competence","responsible","respect","all","staff","students","using","or","developing","are","personally","adhering","these","world","first","deploy","equitable","microsoft","365","access","training","across","its","entire","community","with","65","000","colleagues","receiving","full","m365","suite","chat","available","everyone","account","contractual","agreement","ensuring","prompts","uploaded","files","private","protected","by","same","security","encryption","emails","onedrive","system","learn","user","data","submitting","work","created","one","own","misrepresenting","understanding","subject","plagiarism","will","be","dealt","in","accordance","academic","malpractice","procedure","detect","generated","content","unreliable","biased","cannot","relied","on","identify","summative","assessment","output","such","currently","must","cite","acknowledge","outputs","they","them","their","including","quoting","summarising","paraphrasing","editing","translating","processing","re","writing","idea","generation","enterprise","via","licences","whenever","there","risk","inappropriate","disclosure","free","should","only","extreme","caution","due","risks","approval","school","level","default","may","broadened","narrowed","specific","course","units","assignments","given","detailed","information","explaining","rationale","what","allowed","an","tool","correct","grammar","spelling","acceptable","but","ensure","result","substantive","changes","meaning","recognises","power","research","innovation","any","generate","completely","transparent","fabricate","manipulate","without","clear","declaration","constitutes","misconduct","recommends","related","gdpr","compliant","protects","personal","always","carefully","consider","whether","adding","into","necessary","presence","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","integrity","named","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"monash","entityName":"Monash University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/monash","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/monash.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T14:12:00.000Z","claimCount":9,"sourceCount":9,"country":"Australia","region":"Melbourne","aliases":["Monash University","monash","QS 2026 =36","MU","monash.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Monash University is listed as QS 2026 rank =36. Monash University has 9 source-backed AI policy claim records from 9 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Acknowledging the use of AI - Student Academic Success","AI and assessment - Learning and Teaching - Monash University","AI and assessments - Student Academic Success - Monash University","AI Policies and Guidelines - Artificial intelligence at Monash","AI statements - Learning and Teaching: Teach HQ - Monash University","Guidance on Generative AI - Graduate Research - Monash University","Microsoft Copilot - Student Academic Success","Responsible and ethical use of AI - Student Academic Success","Responsible use of AI in education at Monash - Learning and Teaching"],"claimSummaries":["When allowed or required to use AI in an assessment, students must follow all instructions and restrictions on its use, clearly document the type of AI used and how it contributed, and provide written acknowledgment of the use of AI and its extent.","Chief Examiners have overarching responsibility for designing and setting assessment conditions, including communicating and verifying the responsible use of AI within assessment tasks.","Thesis examiners are not permitted to use Generative AI technologies (such as ChatGPT) during the thesis examination process to support, prepare, or write their examiners' report.","Using AI in a way not permitted in an assessment, or failing to acknowledge its use correctly, may breach assessment conditions under the Student Academic Integrity Procedure.","Students should not upload personal, sensitive, copyrighted, or licensed material to AI tools, as many AI tools cannot guarantee privacy, strong data security, or the protection of intellectual property.","Monash enterprise systems such as Copilot have enterprise data protections identified under the green shield in Monash Copilot. Students should use their Monash email address to access Microsoft Copilot which provides data protection for Monash.","Monash's AI responsible use principles include community benefit, education and research excellence, fairness, transparency, integrity and accountability, and data security and privacy.","Responsible use of AI should be explainable in terms of what AI was used, which AI tools assisted in producing the work, how many versions and drafts were produced, and how outputs were adapted.","Microsoft Copilot is a generative AI program that has capabilities to generate text and images in response to user prompts. Monash recommends logging in using Monash credentials to ensure data is more protected."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["monash","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","36","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","australia","melbourne","mu","edu","acknowledging","use","of","student","academic","success","assessment","learning","teaching","assessments","policies","guidelines","artificial","intelligence","at","statements","teach","hq","guidance","on","generative","graduate","research","microsoft","copilot","responsible","ethical","in","education","when","allowed","or","required","to","an","students","must","follow","all","instructions","restrictions","its","clearly","document","type","used","how","it","contributed","provide","written","acknowledgment","extent","chief","examiners","have","overarching","responsibility","for","designing","setting","conditions","including","communicating","verifying","within","tasks","thesis","are","not","permitted","technologies","such","chatgpt","during","examination","process","support","prepare","write","their","report","using","way","failing","acknowledge","correctly","may","breach","under","integrity","procedure","should","upload","personal","sensitive","copyrighted","licensed","material","tools","many","cannot","guarantee","privacy","strong","data","security","protection","intellectual","property","enterprise","systems","protections","identified","green","shield","email","address","access","which","provides","principles","include","community","benefit","excellence","fairness","transparency","accountability","be","explainable","terms","what","was","assisted","producing","work","versions","drafts","were","produced","outputs","adapted","program","that","capabilities","generate","text","images","response","user","prompts","recommends","logging","credentials","ensure","more","protected","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","approved","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"ubc","entityName":"University of British Columbia","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/ubc","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/ubc.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.97,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T14:00:00Z","claimCount":10,"sourceCount":10,"country":"Canada","region":"Vancouver","aliases":["University of British Columbia","ubc","QS 2026 40","academic.ubc.ca","academicintegrity.ubc.ca","ai.ctlt.ubc.ca","genai.ubc.ca","grad.ubc.ca","ubc.ca"],"fields":{"summary":"University of British Columbia is listed as QS 2026 rank 40. University of British Columbia has 10 source-backed AI policy claim records from 10 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["10 things UBC students should know about generative AI","GenAI - Academic Integrity at UBC","Guidelines for all uses of GenAI in Teaching & Learning","Microsoft Copilot for Organizations","Principles for the Use of Generative AI Tools","Privacy & Risk - Generative AI at UBC","Privacy Impact Assessments for GenerativeAI Instructional Use at UBC","Teaching & Learning Guidelines - Generative AI","UBC Guidance - Generative AI","Use of Generative AI - Graduate School at UBC"],"claimSummaries":["Students may only use GenAI for assessed work (assignments, exams, projects, theses) if expressly permitted by their instructor, supervisor, or program.","The use of applications to detect AI-generated content is strongly discouraged at UBC due to concerns about effectiveness, accuracy, bias, privacy, and intellectual property. Turnitin AI detection is not enabled.","All uses of GenAI at UBC must uphold academic integrity and adhere to the academic misconduct regulations in the UBC Okanagan and Vancouver calendars.","UBC says instructors or teaching assistants cannot require students to use GenAI or any other technology tool that requires sharing personal information unless the tool has undergone a UBC Privacy Impact Assessment review and been approved for use with personal information.","Do not enter personal information into any generative AI tool that has not been through UBC's FIPPA compliance assessment (PIA), as to do so may be a breach of privacy.","UBC recognizes generative AI as a tool to assist in tasks, not a replacement for human creativity and judgment, and encourages experimentation within ethical and responsible use boundaries.","Faculty and staff may use GenAI in teaching and learning so long as this is within the bounds of legal, university, Faculty, or program-level policies and requirements.","Microsoft Copilot for Organizations is the approved institutional GenAI chatbot at UBC, available to all faculty, students, and staff with UBC credentials, with PIA interim approval.","Graduate students must obtain approval from their supervisor/committee for substantive GenAI use in research and thesis work, and must include a GenAI use statement in their thesis preface.","Use of GenAI in teaching and learning should respect Indigenous data sovereignty and community protocols for use and sharing of Indigenous knowledges, intellectual properties, and data."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["ubc","university","of","british","columbia","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","40","has","10","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","canada","vancouver","academic","ca","academicintegrity","ctlt","genai","grad","things","students","should","know","about","generative","integrity","at","guidelines","for","all","uses","in","teaching","learning","microsoft","copilot","organizations","principles","use","tools","privacy","risk","impact","assessments","generativeai","instructional","guidance","graduate","school","may","only","assessed","work","assignments","exams","projects","theses","if","expressly","permitted","by","their","instructor","supervisor","or","program","applications","to","detect","generated","content","strongly","discouraged","due","concerns","effectiveness","accuracy","bias","intellectual","property","turnitin","detection","not","enabled","must","uphold","adhere","misconduct","regulations","okanagan","calendars","says","instructors","assistants","cannot","require","any","other","technology","tool","that","requires","sharing","personal","information","unless","undergone","assessment","been","approved","with","do","enter","into","through","fippa","compliance","pia","so","be","breach","recognizes","assist","tasks","replacement","human","creativity","judgment","encourages","experimentation","within","ethical","responsible","boundaries","faculty","staff","long","this","bounds","legal","level","policies","requirements","institutional","chatbot","available","credentials","interim","approval","obtain","committee","substantive","research","thesis","include","statement","preface","respect","indigenous","data","sovereignty","community","protocols","knowledges","properties","presence","disclosure","coursework","entry","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"yale-university","entityName":"Yale University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/yale-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/yale-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.97,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T12:22:00.000Z","claimCount":12,"sourceCount":8,"country":"United States","region":"New Haven","aliases":["Yale University","QS 2026 21","YU","ai.yale.edu","catalog.yale.edu","poorvucenter.yale.edu","provost.yale.edu","yale.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Yale University is listed as QS 2026 rank 21. Yale University has 12 source-backed AI policy claim records from 8 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Dishonesty - Handbook for Instructors","Academic Integrity and Detection","AI Guidance for Students","AI Guidance for Teachers","Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI Tools","Guiding Principles for Teaching and Learning with AI","Protecting Student Privacy and Your Data","Yale's AI Tools and Resources"],"claimSummaries":["Yale academic integrity guidance treats inserting AI-generated text into an assignment without proper attribution as an academic integrity violation.","Yale guidance says confidential, legally restricted, moderate-risk, and high-risk Yale data should not be entered into AI tools.","Yale lists Clarity Platform as a Yale-provided AI chatbot platform housed within Yale secure infrastructure and available to staff, faculty, and students.","Yale expects faculty to give clear instructions on permitted AI use and attribution, and expects students to follow instructor guidelines for coursework.","Yale states that instructors have authority within each course to determine whether and how students may use AI on assignments.","Yale Poorvu Center guidance says classroom AI use must comply with FERPA and instructors cannot require students to create external accounts for tools Yale does not directly license.","Yale describes Copilot Chat as not using conversations to train AI models or sharing data with OpenAI, while limiting high-risk data to Work search.","The Yale Poorvu Center says it does not endorse AI detection software or enable such features in Canvas.","Yale labels listed no-cost popular AI tools as informational only, not endorsed or provided by Yale, and for low-risk unsecured data experimentation and collaboration.","Yale guidance tells users to review and verify AI-generated outputs, especially before publication.","Yale guidance directs people considering an AI product to conduct an initial review for institutional security requirements.","Yale Poorvu Center guidance says generative AI use is subject to individual course policies and encourages instructors to adapt model policies to their course goals."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["yale","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","21","has","12","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","new","haven","yu","edu","catalog","poorvucenter","provost","academic","dishonesty","handbook","for","instructors","integrity","detection","guidance","students","teachers","guidelines","use","of","generative","tools","guiding","principles","teaching","learning","with","protecting","student","privacy","your","data","resources","treats","inserting","generated","text","into","an","assignment","without","proper","attribution","violation","says","confidential","legally","restricted","moderate","risk","high","should","not","be","entered","lists","clarity","platform","provided","chatbot","housed","within","secure","infrastructure","available","to","staff","faculty","expects","give","clear","instructions","on","permitted","follow","instructor","coursework","that","have","authority","each","course","determine","whether","how","may","assignments","poorvu","center","classroom","must","comply","ferpa","cannot","require","create","external","accounts","does","directly","license","describes","copilot","chat","using","conversations","train","models","or","sharing","openai","while","limiting","work","search","it","endorse","software","enable","such","features","in","canvas","labels","no","cost","popular","informational","only","endorsed","by","low","unsecured","experimentation","collaboration","tells","users","verify","outputs","especially","before","publication","directs","people","considering","product","conduct","initial","institutional","security","requirements","subject","individual","policies","encourages","adapt","model","their","goals","presence","disclosure","exams","entry","approved","named","services","research","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"edinburgh","entityName":"The University of Edinburgh","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/edinburgh","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/edinburgh.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T12:13:00Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"Edinburgh","aliases":["The University of Edinburgh","edinburgh","QS 2026 34","UE","ac.uk","ed.ac.uk","information-services.ed.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Edinburgh is listed as QS 2026 rank 34. The University of Edinburgh has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI in Microsoft 365","ELM - Edinburgh access to Language Models","Generative AI Guidelines for Postgraduate Research Students","Guidance for students and staff on AI use","Using generative AI in your studies: guidelines for students","Using Generative AI in Your Work: Guidance for Staff"],"claimSummaries":["At the University of Edinburgh, presenting AI outputs as your own original work, submitting AI-generated text without acknowledgment, and using AI agents within university learning platforms constitute academic misconduct.","The University of Edinburgh does not ban the use of generative AI by students, though its use is restricted for much assessed work.","ELM (Edinburgh access to Language Models) is the University of Edinburgh's AI innovation platform and a central gateway providing safer access to generative AI through large language models.","At the University of Edinburgh, staff presenting AI-generated content as their own original work, uploading personal data or confidential information to external AI tools, and relying on AI detection tools are listed as unacceptable uses.","The University of Edinburgh states that ELM chat histories are private to the individual user and are not accessible to lecturers for checking student work.","The University of Edinburgh advises staff not to rely on AI detection tools to confirm authorship, as they misclassify human and AI content.","The University of Edinburgh does not ban the use of generative AI in postgraduate research, though its use is restricted for work assessed by the University and students must discuss AI use with supervisors.","The University of Edinburgh says users can access the Copilot chat service within Edge by signing in with University credentials, where a green shield indicates additional protections."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["edinburgh","the","university","of","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","34","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","ue","ac","uk","ed","information","services","in","microsoft","365","elm","access","to","models","generative","guidelines","for","postgraduate","research","students","guidance","staff","on","use","using","your","studies","work","at","presenting","outputs","own","submitting","generated","text","without","acknowledgment","agents","within","learning","platforms","constitute","academic","misconduct","does","not","ban","by","though","its","restricted","much","assessed","innovation","platform","central","gateway","providing","safer","through","large","content","their","uploading","personal","data","or","confidential","external","tools","relying","detection","are","unacceptable","uses","states","that","chat","histories","private","individual","user","accessible","lecturers","checking","student","advises","rely","confirm","authorship","they","misclassify","human","must","discuss","with","supervisors","says","users","can","copilot","service","edge","signing","credentials","where","green","shield","indicates","additional","protections","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","integrity","approved","named","teaching","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"cuhk","entityName":"The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/cuhk","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/cuhk.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.97,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T12:07:00.000Z","claimCount":12,"sourceCount":7,"country":"Hong Kong SAR","region":"Hong Kong","aliases":["The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)","cuhk","QS 2026 =32","aqs.cuhk.edu.hk","clear.cuhk.edu.hk","cuhk.edu.hk","edu.hk","itsc.cuhk.edu.hk","libguides.lib.cuhk.edu.hk"],"fields":{"summary":"The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) is listed as QS 2026 rank =32. The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) has 12 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Hub @ CUHK - ITSC","Declaration to be included in assignments - CUHK Academic Honesty Policy","Generative AI in Education - Centre for Learning Enhancement And Research (CLEAR), CUHK","M365 Copilot (Premium) - CUHK ITSC","Microsoft Copilot Chat (Basic) - CUHK ITSC","Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Teaching, Learning and Assessments - A Guide for Students","Using AI in Education and Research - CUHK Library LibGuides"],"claimSummaries":["At CUHK, improper or unauthorized use of AI tools in learning activities and assessments constitutes academic dishonesty and is subject to penalties including failure grade, suspension, or termination of studies.","CUHK requires students to declare in each assignment that they have read and understood the University's policy on AI use, complied with course teacher instructions on AI tools, and consent to AI content detection software review.","CUHK defines four approaches to AI use in courses: (1) prohibit all use, (2) use only with prior permission, (3) use only with explicit acknowledgement, and (4) free use without acknowledgement requirement.","CUHK penalties for academic dishonesty involving AI tools may include reviewable/permanent demerits, failure grade, suspension, lowering degree classification, and termination of studies.","CUHK provides Microsoft Copilot Chat (Basic) free to all students and staff under the Microsoft 365 license, with enterprise data protection when signed in with CUHK account.","CUHK's student AI guide establishes ethical principles of accountability, transparency, and acknowledgement for AI tool use. Users are accountable for AI-generated outputs and must fact-check all outputs.","CUHK provides M365 Copilot (Premium) as a charged service for staff, project accounts, and departmental accounts, integrating with Microsoft 365 apps for AI-powered productivity.","CUHK emphasizes responsible and ethical use of generative AI in education, prohibiting unauthorized AI use in assignments while allowing its use under specific conditions with proper citation and permissions.","CUHK advises using Microsoft Copilot with CUHK institutional sign-in for data protection, as user and business data is protected and not used to train underlying models.","CUHK's AI guide applies to teaching, learning, and assessments. For research contexts (capstone courses, theses), students must also refer to separate Guidelines on the Responsible Use of AI for Research.","CUHK ITSC provides AI Hub @ CUHK as a one-stop hub for AI resources at the University, offering an overview of AI tools and services for teaching, learning, research, and work.","CUHK Library advises users to be aware of privacy policies of AI platforms, to opt out of data being used for model training where possible, and to avoid inputting confidential information into external AI tools."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["cuhk","the","chinese","university","of","hong","kong","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","32","has","12","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","sar","aqs","edu","hk","clear","itsc","libguides","lib","hub","declaration","to","be","included","in","assignments","academic","honesty","generative","education","centre","for","learning","enhancement","research","m365","copilot","premium","microsoft","chat","basic","use","artificial","intelligence","tools","teaching","assessments","guide","students","using","library","at","improper","or","unauthorized","activities","constitutes","dishonesty","subject","penalties","including","failure","grade","suspension","termination","studies","requires","declare","each","assignment","that","they","have","read","understood","on","complied","with","course","teacher","instructions","consent","content","detection","software","defines","four","approaches","courses","prohibit","all","only","prior","permission","explicit","acknowledgement","free","without","requirement","involving","may","include","reviewable","permanent","demerits","lowering","degree","classification","provides","staff","under","365","license","enterprise","data","protection","when","signed","account","student","establishes","ethical","principles","accountability","transparency","tool","users","are","accountable","generated","outputs","must","fact","check","charged","service","project","accounts","departmental","integrating","apps","powered","productivity","emphasizes","responsible","prohibiting","while","allowing","its","specific","conditions","proper","citation","permissions","advises","institutional","sign","user","business","protected","not","used","train","underlying","models","applies","contexts","capstone","theses","also","refer","separate","guidelines","one","stop","resources","offering","an","overview","services","work","aware","privacy","policies","platforms","opt","out","being","model","training","where","possible","avoid","inputting","confidential","information","into","external","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","integrity","approved","named","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"kcl","entityName":"King's College London","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/kcl","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/kcl.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T12:00:00Z","claimCount":12,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"London","aliases":["King's College London","kcl","QS 2026 31","ac.uk","kcl.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"King's College London is listed as QS 2026 rank 31. King's College London has 12 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Misconduct Policy","Generative AI - Student guidance","Generative AI: context and definitions","Generative AI: Guidance for doctoral students, supervisors and examiners","King's guidance on generative AI for teaching, assessment and feedback","Macro-level guidance: University-wide principles and policy"],"claimSummaries":["King's College London does not ban the use of generative AI tools by students.","At King's College London, inappropriate use of generative AI without attribution is considered academic misconduct and can result in penalties ranging from formal warnings to expulsion.","King's College London does not require students to reference generative AI as an authoritative source in the reference list, but does require explicit acknowledgement of AI tool use in coursework.","At King's College London, submitting AI-generated text as one's own without written departmental permission is considered misconduct under third-party involvement or text manipulation offences.","King's College London has disabled the AI detection feature in Turnitin due to concerns about reliability and false positives.","King's College London supports considered use of generative AI and is open to evolving teaching, assessment and feedback practices according to need and disciplinary differences.","Microsoft Copilot is available to all King's College London students via their KCL Microsoft account and comes with commercial data protection under the university's enterprise license.","King's College London subscribes to the Russell Group's five principles on generative AI in education, including supporting AI literacy, adapting teaching and assessment, and ensuring academic integrity.","King's College London permits doctoral students to use generative AI tools in their thesis writing processes for assistive purposes such as clarifying writing, provided use is declared and consistent with guidance.","King's College London doctoral examiners must not upload any part of a student's thesis into a generative AI tool or use external AI detection software when assessing the thesis.","King's College London defines four broad levels of acceptable AI use in assessments: minimal, limited/selective, open, and embedded, with programme and module leaders adjusting to assessment specifics.","Microsoft Copilot is the primary institutional generative AI tool available to all King's College London students and staff via KCL Microsoft login credentials."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["kcl","king","college","london","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","31","has","12","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","ac","uk","academic","misconduct","generative","student","guidance","context","definitions","for","doctoral","students","supervisors","examiners","on","teaching","assessment","feedback","macro","level","university","wide","principles","does","not","ban","use","of","tools","by","at","inappropriate","without","attribution","considered","can","result","in","penalties","ranging","formal","warnings","to","expulsion","require","reference","an","authoritative","list","but","explicit","acknowledgement","tool","coursework","submitting","generated","text","one","own","written","departmental","permission","under","third","party","involvement","or","manipulation","offences","disabled","detection","feature","turnitin","due","concerns","about","reliability","false","positives","supports","open","evolving","practices","according","need","disciplinary","differences","microsoft","copilot","available","all","via","their","account","comes","with","commercial","data","protection","enterprise","license","subscribes","russell","group","five","education","including","supporting","literacy","adapting","ensuring","integrity","permits","thesis","writing","processes","assistive","purposes","such","clarifying","provided","declared","consistent","must","upload","any","part","into","external","software","when","assessing","defines","four","broad","levels","acceptable","assessments","minimal","limited","selective","embedded","programme","module","leaders","adjusting","specifics","primary","institutional","staff","login","credentials","presence","disclosure","exams","privacy","entry","approved","named","services","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-queensland","entityName":"The University of Queensland","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-queensland","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-queensland.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.97,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T12:00:00.000Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":5,"country":"Australia","region":"Brisbane City","aliases":["The University of Queensland","university-of-queensland","QS 2026 =42","UQ","edu.au","guides.library.uq.edu.au","itali.uq.edu.au","my.uq.edu.au"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Queensland is listed as QS 2026 rank =42. The University of Queensland has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic integrity and student conduct","AI Student Hub","Guide to acknowledging and referencing AI","Microsoft Copilot Chat - UQ enterprise AI tool","UQ's rules for using AI in assessment"],"claimSummaries":["UQ course profiles must clearly state if, when, and how AI (including Machine Translation) is allowed. Two options exist: Option 1 prohibits AI in in-person assessment; Option 2 permits AI use with mandatory referencing.","UQ has disabled the Turnitin AI writing indicator functionality for all assessments from Semester 2, 2025, citing that AI detection tools are flawed and unreliable.","At UQ, the use of AI outputs without attribution, and contrary to any direction by teaching staff, is a form of plagiarism and constitutes academic misconduct.","Microsoft Copilot Chat is UQ's enterprise AI tool, available to UQ staff and students, and the UQ Library says it provides a higher level of data security and privacy than other AI tools.","UQ says students must acknowledge where they used AI in assessment, including direct quotes or paraphrases of AI-generated content and use of AI tools for summarising, brainstorming, planning, editing, or proofreading."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","queensland","the","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","42","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","australia","brisbane","city","uq","edu","au","guides","library","itali","my","academic","integrity","student","conduct","hub","guide","to","acknowledging","referencing","microsoft","copilot","chat","enterprise","tool","rules","for","using","in","assessment","course","profiles","must","clearly","if","when","how","including","machine","translation","allowed","two","options","exist","option","prohibits","person","permits","use","with","mandatory","disabled","turnitin","writing","indicator","functionality","all","assessments","semester","2025","citing","that","detection","tools","are","flawed","unreliable","at","outputs","without","attribution","contrary","any","direction","by","teaching","staff","form","plagiarism","constitutes","misconduct","available","students","says","it","provides","higher","level","data","security","privacy","than","other","acknowledge","where","they","used","direct","quotes","or","paraphrases","generated","content","summarising","brainstorming","planning","editing","proofreading","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","approved","named","services","guidance","research","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"hkust","entityName":"The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/hkust","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/hkust.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T00:18:00.000Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":7,"country":"Hong Kong SAR","region":"Hong Kong","aliases":["The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology","hkust","QS 2026 44","cei.hkust.edu.hk","edu.hk","itso.hkust.edu.hk","registry.hkust.edu.hk"],"fields":{"summary":"The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology is listed as QS 2026 rank 44. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Assessment Design | HKUST CEI | Center for Education Innovation","Assessment Policies and Procedures | HKUST - Academic Registry","Generative AI Tools | Information Technology Services Office","Generative AI Usage Guidelines | Information Technology Services Office","Guidelines and Policies | HKUST CEI | Center for Education Innovation","Usage Tips on Microsoft Copilot | Information Technology Services Office","What is data desensitization? | Information Technology Services Office"],"claimSummaries":["HKUST guidelines state that users shall not use generative AI tools for unlawful, harmful, or malicious activities, including fraud, harassment, defamation, or infringement of rights.","HKUST allows faculty members the flexibility to set their own course-level policies for GenAI integration in teaching and learning.","HKUST provides approved generative AI tools including OpenWebUI, HKUST GenAI Platform, Google Gemini Enterprise, Microsoft Copilot Chat, and Microsoft 365 Copilot.","HKUST advises users not to input confidential, sensitive, or personal data into generative AI tools unless data is desensitized.","HKUST assessment policies require course syllabi to clearly present policies on the use of Generative AI tools and academic integrity."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["hkust","the","hong","kong","university","of","science","and","technology","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","44","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","review","state","sar","cei","edu","hk","itso","registry","assessment","design","center","for","education","innovation","policies","procedures","academic","generative","tools","information","services","office","usage","guidelines","tips","on","microsoft","copilot","what","data","desensitization","that","users","shall","not","use","unlawful","harmful","or","malicious","activities","including","fraud","harassment","defamation","infringement","rights","allows","faculty","members","flexibility","to","set","their","own","course","level","genai","integration","in","teaching","learning","provides","approved","openwebui","platform","google","gemini","enterprise","chat","365","advises","input","confidential","sensitive","personal","into","unless","desensitized","require","syllabi","clearly","present","integrity","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","named","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"institut-polytechnique-de-paris","entityName":"Institut Polytechnique de Paris","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/institut-polytechnique-de-paris","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/institut-polytechnique-de-paris.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T00:11:00.000Z","claimCount":4,"sourceCount":3,"country":"France","region":"Palaiseau Cedex","aliases":["Institut Polytechnique de Paris","QS 2026 41","IPDP","ip-paris.fr","polytechnique.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Institut Polytechnique de Paris is listed as QS 2026 rank 41. Institut Polytechnique de Paris has 4 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Regulations For Master Programs - IP Paris","IA - Ressources pour les enseignants - Teaching & Learning Center","Règlement des études des masters de l'Institut Polytechnique de Paris"],"claimSummaries":["Institut Polytechnique de Paris's 2025-2026 Master programs academic regulations prohibit the use of generative AI in assessments for those programs unless explicitly authorized by the instructor in written instructions. Unauthorized use constitutes academic misconduct.","Le règlement des études 2025-2026 des masters de l'Institut Polytechnique de Paris interdit l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle générative dans les évaluations de ces programmes, sauf autorisation explicite de l'enseignant dans ses consignes écrites. Tout manquement est considéré comme une fraude.","Under Institut Polytechnique de Paris's 2025-2026 Master programs academic regulations, when generative AI use is explicitly permitted by an instructor, students must clearly acknowledge its use in accordance with standard citation practices.","École polytechnique (member school) provides teaching resources for AI integration including detection tools (Turnitin, AI Text Classifier, GPTZero) and curated expert articles on generative AI in higher education."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["institut","polytechnique","de","paris","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","41","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","france","palaiseau","cedex","ipdp","ip","fr","edu","academic","regulations","for","master","programs","ia","ressources","pour","les","enseignants","teaching","learning","center","reglement","des","etudes","masters","2025","prohibit","use","of","generative","in","assessments","those","unless","explicitly","authorized","by","instructor","written","instructions","unauthorized","constitutes","misconduct","le","interdit","utilisation","intelligence","artificielle","dans","evaluations","ces","programmes","sauf","autorisation","explicite","enseignant","ses","consignes","ecrites","tout","manquement","est","considere","comme","une","fraude","under","when","permitted","an","students","must","clearly","acknowledge","its","accordance","with","standard","citation","practices","ecole","member","school","provides","resources","integration","including","detection","tools","turnitin","text","classifier","gptzero","curated","expert","articles","on","higher","education","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","integrity","approved","named","services","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"anu","entityName":"Australian National University (ANU)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/anu","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/anu.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T00:19:10Z","claimCount":29,"sourceCount":12,"country":"Australia","region":"Canberra","aliases":["Australian National University (ANU)","anu","QS 2026 =32","anu.edu.au","asiapacific.anu.edu.au","edu.au","law.anu.edu.au","learningandteaching.anu.edu.au","libguides.anu.edu.au"],"fields":{"summary":"Australian National University (ANU) is listed as QS 2026 rank =32. Australian National University (ANU) has 29 source-backed AI policy claim records from 12 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Essentials - ANU Learning and Teaching","AI for learning and assessment","AI Guidelines for CAP Students","ANU Institutional AI Principles","Chat GPT and other generative AI tools: What ANU academics need to know (PDF)","ChatGPT: What ANU academics need to know","FAQs about AI","Generative AI and Assessment - ANU Learning and Teaching","Generative AI and Data Governance","Guide for students: best practice when using Generative AI","Referencing and generative AI - Artificial Intelligence including generative AI LibGuide","Use of Generative AI Tools in Assessment - ANU Law"],"claimSummaries":["ANU approved six institutional AI principles via Academic Board in June 2023, covering excellence/integrity, research engagement, clear guidance, AI literacy, access/privacy/security, and collaborative policy development.","Submitting AI-generated content as one's own work constitutes a breach of ANU's academic integrity rules.","ANU academic staff are not permitted to upload student data or academic work to generative AI platforms.","ANU prohibits using AI to collect, use, store, or disclose personal information without express consent from the individual(s).","ANU requires that only university-approved AI solutions/software be used to ensure appropriate data governance, information security, and licensing.","Students retain IP ownership of their assignments at ANU; staff may not upload student work to AI platforms without express student consent.","At ANU, using AI-generated content when not permitted and claiming authorship without acknowledgment constitutes a breach of academic integrity.","ANU prohibits uploading student work to AI platforms without consent, including for feedback or marking purposes, citing privacy and data security reasons.","ANU Law School prohibits using generative AI to draft assessment content; all submitted work must be the student's own independent and original work.","ANU Law School requires students to explicitly declare AI tool usage in the first footnote of submitted work, including tool names, purpose, and extent of use.","ANU endorses Copilot Enterprise as the primary AI tool for staff and students, accessed via ANU accounts; non-endorsed tools carry security risks the university cannot guarantee.","All AI technical solutions used for ANU business or on ANU-managed devices must be approved by the university; unapproved freeware is considered a network security risk.","ANU permits course conveners to explicitly limit or encourage generative AI use; students must check class summaries and assessment outlines for AI requirements.","ANU treats generative AI as a permissible learning tool that can be cited as an information source, but强调 it is not a replacement for student thinking and originality.","ANU provides Copilot Enterprise and Adobe Firefly as enterprise-licensed AI tools with data protection for staff and students using ANU accounts.","ANU handles suspected generative AI misuse through the same academic misconduct procedure as other integrity breaches, including giving students the opportunity to respond.","ANU Law School permits limited AI use for improving expression in student drafts (grammar, clarity, structure) and brainstorming ideas, provided all information is independently verified.","ANU Law School warns that academic integrity findings related to AI misuse may have long-term consequences for law students, as misconduct must be disclosed when applying for admission to legal practice.","ANU does not ban generative AI, but the College of Asia & the Pacific distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate uses based on whether AI replaces or supports student skill development.","ANU CAP guidelines identify using AI-produced text as one's own, using AI to generate assignment structures, and using AI to rephrase others' work to avoid plagiarism detection as inappropriate uses that constitute academic integrity issues.","ANU allows individual colleges and disciplines to set their own policies on whether AI is permitted for specific assessment tasks, rather than imposing a university-wide blanket rule.","ANU guidance acknowledges that traditional assessments like generic essays and multiple-choice tests are more vulnerable to AI misuse, and recommends redesigning tasks with authentic, specific contexts.","The ANU Library LibGuide references the ARC policy requiring disclosure of generative AI use in grant applications, accuracy verification, and originality compliance.","ANU was developing governance document changes to require students to acknowledge any use of artificial intelligence in their work (as of early 2023).","ANU CAP guidelines state there is a very strong presumption against any use of generative AI or translation programs in language courses, and advise non-language students to check with convenors before using AI for translation.","The ANU Library LibGuide catalogs major publisher policies on AI: ACM prohibits AI authorship but permits disclosed use; Nature, Science, Elsevier, IEEE, and others require disclosure of AI use in manuscripts.","ANU maintains a 'Generative AI and Assessment' resource collection providing step-by-step advice on designing assessments in the age of AI, covering assessment planning, evaluation, and approach determination.","ANU published a PDF FAQ document 'Chat GPT and other generative AI tools: What ANU academics need to know' covering ChatGPT introduction, assessment impact, and institutional response (content also referenced in ANU's blog post).","ANU maintains an 'AI Essentials' resource collection for using supported AI tools while discussing best practice with students."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["anu","australian","national","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","32","has","29","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","12","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","australia","canberra","edu","au","asiapacific","law","learningandteaching","libguides","essentials","learning","teaching","for","assessment","guidelines","cap","students","institutional","principles","chat","gpt","other","generative","tools","what","academics","need","to","know","pdf","chatgpt","faqs","about","data","governance","guide","best","practice","when","using","referencing","artificial","intelligence","including","libguide","use","of","in","approved","six","via","academic","board","june","2023","covering","excellence","integrity","research","engagement","clear","guidance","literacy","access","privacy","security","collaborative","development","submitting","generated","content","one","own","work","constitutes","breach","rules","staff","are","not","permitted","upload","student","or","platforms","prohibits","collect","store","disclose","personal","information","without","express","consent","individual","requires","that","only","solutions","software","be","used","ensure","appropriate","licensing","retain","ip","ownership","their","assignments","at","may","claiming","authorship","acknowledgment","uploading","feedback","marking","purposes","citing","reasons","school","draft","all","submitted","must","independent","explicitly","declare","tool","usage","first","footnote","names","purpose","extent","endorses","copilot","enterprise","primary","accessed","accounts","non","endorsed","carry","risks","cannot","guarantee","technical","business","on","managed","devices","by","unapproved","freeware","considered","network","risk","permits","course","conveners","limit","encourage","check","class","summaries","outlines","requirements","treats","permissible","can","cited","an","but","it","replacement","thinking","originality","provides","adobe","firefly","licensed","with","protection","handles","suspected","misuse","through","same","misconduct","procedure","breaches","giving","opportunity","respond","limited","improving","expression","drafts","grammar","clarity","structure","brainstorming","ideas","provided","independently","verified","warns","findings","related","have","long","term","consequences","disclosed","applying","admission","legal","does","ban","college","asia","pacific","distinguishes","between","inappropriate","uses","based","whether","replaces","supports","skill","identify","produced","text","generate","assignment","structures","rephrase","others","avoid","plagiarism","detection","constitute","issues","allows","colleges","disciplines","set","policies","specific","tasks","rather","than","imposing","wide","blanket","rule","acknowledges","traditional","assessments","like","generic","essays","multiple","choice","tests","more","vulnerable","recommends","redesigning","authentic","contexts","library","references","arc","requiring","disclosure","grant","applications","accuracy","verification","compliance","was","developing","document","changes","require","acknowledge","any","early","there","very","strong","presumption","against","translation","programs","courses","advise","convenors","before","catalogs","major","publisher","acm","nature","science","elsevier","ieee","manuscripts","maintains","resource","collection","providing","step","advice","designing","age","planning","evaluation","approach","determination","published","faq","introduction","impact","response","also","referenced","blog","post","supported","while","discussing","presence","coursework","exams","entry","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"columbia","entityName":"Columbia University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/columbia","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/columbia.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T00:19:10Z","claimCount":16,"sourceCount":8,"country":"United States","region":"New York City","aliases":["Columbia University","columbia","QS 2026 =38","CU","ai.ctl.columbia.edu","columbia.edu","etc.cuit.columbia.edu","it.cuimc.columbia.edu","law.columbia.edu","provost.columbia.edu","students.business.columbia.edu","tc.columbia.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Columbia University is listed as QS 2026 rank =38. Columbia University has 16 source-backed AI policy claim records from 8 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI and Generative Technology Use at CUIMC","Best Practices for Responsible AI Use at Columbia - CUIT","Columbia Law School Interim Policy on Generative AI","Columbia University AI Guidelines","Generative AI - Office of the Provost - Columbia University","Generative AI Policy - Office of the Provost - Columbia University","Generative AI Policy | Students - Columbia Business School","TC Guidance | Digital Futures Institute (DFI)"],"claimSummaries":["Columbia Law School prohibits generative AI use in exams, final papers, and for drafting any part of work submitted for credit, even if fully documented.","CUIMC provides HIPAA-compliant versions of ChatGPT Education and Microsoft Copilot as approved AI chatbot tools; workforce members must use CUIMC-issued accounts for compliance.","CUIMC restricts sensitive data (PHI, RHI, PII) use with AI to HIPAA-compliant platforms only (ChatGPT Education, approved Microsoft Copilot, CHAT with compliant models); research use requires IRB approval.","Columbia Law School's default AI prohibition can be overridden by individual instructors who set more permissive policies in writing in their syllabus.","Columbia Law School permits students to use generative AI for studying, brainstorming, and identifying typographical errors, but not for writing, editing, revising, or translating text.","Columbia Law School requires all generative AI use to comply with university data protection policy; confidential or personal information must not be shared with AI tools unless retention and training use is disabled.","As of March 2026, Google Gemini, NotebookLM, and Anthropic Claude are not approved for use with sensitive data at CUIMC; they may only be used with non-sensitive, non-confidential data.","CUIMC requires a formal IT Risk Assessment review before deploying any locally installed AI models (LLM, NLP, ML) to evaluate security, privacy, and compliance risks.","Teachers College provides five example syllabus statements ranging from no AI use permitted to generally permitted with attribution, allowing instructors to choose their stance.","Teachers College example syllabus statements require citations or disclosure detailing specific AI tools and models used when AI use is permitted.","All Teachers College example syllabus statements include provisions for students with disabilities who have AI-related accommodations through OASID.","Columbia's Center for Teaching and Learning maintains a central AI Guidelines hub linking to the Provost's policy, academic integrity resources, CUIT resources, and best practices for responsible AI use.","Columbia University has a university-wide Generative AI Policy from the Office of the Provost governing use by staff, faculty, students, and researchers, covering information security, data privacy, copyright, academic integrity, and bias.","Columbia University requires researchers to avoid uploading unpublished research data or confidential information into generative AI tools.","Columbia Business School requires students to disclose to faculty their use of generative AI platforms and the manner of use in coursework.","Columbia University Information Technology (CUIT) publishes university-wide best practices for responsible AI use applicable to faculty, students, researchers, and staff."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["columbia","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","38","has","16","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","new","york","city","cu","ctl","edu","etc","cuit","it","cuimc","law","provost","students","business","tc","generative","technology","use","at","best","practices","for","responsible","school","interim","on","guidelines","office","of","guidance","digital","futures","institute","dfi","prohibits","in","exams","final","papers","drafting","any","part","work","submitted","credit","even","if","fully","documented","provides","hipaa","compliant","versions","chatgpt","education","microsoft","copilot","approved","chatbot","tools","workforce","members","must","issued","accounts","compliance","restricts","sensitive","data","phi","rhi","pii","with","to","platforms","only","chat","models","research","requires","irb","approval","default","prohibition","can","be","overridden","by","individual","instructors","who","set","more","permissive","policies","writing","their","syllabus","permits","studying","brainstorming","identifying","typographical","errors","but","not","editing","revising","or","translating","text","all","comply","protection","confidential","personal","information","shared","unless","retention","training","disabled","march","google","gemini","notebooklm","anthropic","claude","are","they","may","used","non","formal","risk","assessment","before","deploying","locally","installed","llm","nlp","ml","evaluate","security","privacy","risks","teachers","college","five","example","statements","ranging","no","permitted","generally","attribution","allowing","choose","stance","require","citations","disclosure","detailing","specific","when","include","provisions","disabilities","have","related","accommodations","through","oasid","center","teaching","learning","maintains","central","hub","linking","academic","integrity","resources","wide","governing","staff","faculty","researchers","covering","copyright","bias","avoid","uploading","unpublished","into","disclose","manner","coursework","publishes","applicable","presence","entry","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"jhu","entityName":"Johns Hopkins University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/jhu","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/jhu.json","reviewState":"needs_review","confidence":0.7,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T00:19:10Z","claimCount":7,"sourceCount":7,"country":"United States","region":"Baltimore","aliases":["Johns Hopkins University","jhu","QS 2026 24","engineering.jhu.edu","ep.jhu.edu","jhu.edu","teaching.jhu.edu","wseit.engineering.jhu.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Johns Hopkins University is listed as QS 2026 rank 24. Johns Hopkins University has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Integrity – Johns Hopkins Engineering CTLD","Faculty Facing Guidance on Student Generative AI-Use","Generative AI / CoPilot / ChatGPT Information - WSEIT","Generative AI Tool Guidance | Teaching @ JHU","Guidelines - Teaching @ JHU","Student Use of Generative AI - Johns Hopkins Engineering CTLD","Syllabus Statements | Teaching @ JHU"],"claimSummaries":["JHU requires all uses of AI tools in any assignment to be disclosed, with FERPA guidelines referenced for data protection.","JHU provides official syllabus statement templates, including options that prohibit students from using ChatGPT or other AI tools to generate written content for assignments.","JHU Engineering for Professionals provides faculty-facing guidance with detailed generative AI use categories, including categories where AI may not be used in any form.","JHU is working to ensure AI tools procured on behalf of the university meet privacy and security standards.","JHU maintains a central Generative AI Tool Guidance hub on Teaching @ JHU covering teaching and learning applications.","JHU Engineering's Center for Teaching and Learning Design provides school-specific guidance on student use of generative AI.","JHU Engineering CTLD maintains an academic integrity page specifically addressing ChatGPT and AI-related concerns."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["jhu","johns","hopkins","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","24","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","baltimore","engineering","edu","ep","teaching","wseit","academic","integrity","ctld","faculty","facing","guidance","on","student","generative","use","copilot","chatgpt","information","tool","guidelines","of","syllabus","statements","requires","all","uses","tools","in","any","assignment","to","be","disclosed","with","ferpa","referenced","for","data","protection","provides","statement","templates","including","options","that","prohibit","students","using","or","other","generate","written","content","assignments","professionals","detailed","categories","where","may","not","used","form","working","ensure","procured","behalf","meet","privacy","security","standards","maintains","central","hub","covering","learning","applications","center","design","school","specific","an","page","specifically","addressing","related","concerns","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","approved","named","services","research","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"snu","entityName":"Seoul National University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/snu","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/snu.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.9,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T00:19:10Z","claimCount":16,"sourceCount":7,"country":"South Korea","region":"Seoul","aliases":["Seoul National University","snu","QS 2026 =38","ac.kr","health.snu.ac.kr","libguide.snu.ac.kr","snu.ac.kr","snurnd.snu.ac.kr"],"fields":{"summary":"Seoul National University is listed as QS 2026 rank =38. Seoul National University has 16 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["「서울대학교 AI 가이드라인」 제정 안내 - 보도자료","「서울대학교 AI 가이드라인」 제정 전문,국문/영문 - 자료실","AI 도구의 활용 (Use of AI Tools) - SNU Library","AI와 연구 활동 (AI and Research Activities) - SNU Library LibGuide","AI와 연구·출판 윤리 (AI and Research/Publishing Ethics)","서울대학교 AI 가이드라인 SNU AI Guidelines","중앙도서관 구독 전자자료의 생성형 AI활용 관련 유의사항 안내"],"claimSummaries":["SNU's AI Guidelines do not uniformly restrict or prohibit AI use; they establish standards to support rational judgment and ethical, creative use based on autonomy and trust.","SNU requires instructors to communicate AI tool usage policies (permitted/prohibited scope and reporting methods) through syllabi, and students must comply.","SNU's AI Guidelines for research require cross-verification of AI outputs for errors/bias, protection of research data and confidential information, and documentation of AI use for research reproducibility.","SNU's AI Guidelines require transparent disclosure of AI use, fact and source verification, copyright/privacy/information security compliance, bias correction, and awareness of accountability.","SNU Library cites COPE's position that AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for research results and lack legal personality.","SNU Library cites COPE requiring authors to clearly disclose in their methods section which AI tools were used and how, covering manuscript writing, image creation, and data analysis.","SNU Library warns that uploading subscribed e-resources to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or similar AI services, or performing bulk downloads, may exceed publisher license terms and could result in access being blocked for the entire university.","SNU Library states that most e-resource subscription agreements only permit viewing, downloading, and printing; using resources for AI training/analysis or uploading to third-party AI services requires separate authorization.","SNU's AI Guidelines establish basic principles requiring members to understand AI tool purposes and characteristics, apply critical thinking, and balance creativity with social responsibility.","SNU's AI Guidelines require compliance with core ethical standards (transparency, accuracy, privacy, information security, accountability) throughout the entire AI use process, with domain-specific considerations for education, research, and administration.","SNU Library guidance states that researchers should use AI to improve research efficiency while maintaining research ethics and practicing responsible AI use.","SNU Library provides an AI ethics checklist requiring researchers to cite AI sources, avoid rights infringement, not input sensitive information, cross-verify AI outputs, and use AI only as a supplementary tool.","SNU Library advises researchers to check target journal editorial policies from the planning stage, as policies vary on whether LLMs can be listed as authors and whether AI-generated text is permitted.","SNU Library warns that not citing generative AI use in papers risks plagiarism charges; researchers must cite AI use according to journal-specific styles (MLA, APA, Chicago).","SNU Library notes that many research institutions lack clear AI policies, and researchers operate in uncertainty or within extremely limited scope.","SNU hosts official Korean and English PDF versions of the SNU AI Guidelines on its downloads page, published January 1, 2026."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["snu","seoul","national","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","38","has","16","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","south","korea","ac","kr","health","libguide","snurnd","use","of","tools","library","research","activities","publishing","ethics","guidelines","do","not","uniformly","restrict","or","prohibit","they","establish","standards","to","support","rational","judgment","ethical","creative","based","on","autonomy","trust","requires","instructors","communicate","tool","usage","policies","permitted","prohibited","scope","reporting","methods","through","syllabi","students","must","comply","for","require","cross","verification","outputs","errors","bias","protection","data","confidential","information","documentation","reproducibility","transparent","disclosure","fact","copyright","privacy","security","compliance","correction","awareness","accountability","cites","cope","position","that","cannot","be","authors","because","take","responsibility","results","lack","legal","personality","requiring","clearly","disclose","in","their","section","which","were","used","how","covering","manuscript","writing","image","creation","analysis","warns","uploading","subscribed","resources","chatgpt","claude","gemini","similar","services","performing","bulk","downloads","may","exceed","publisher","license","terms","could","result","access","being","blocked","entire","states","most","resource","subscription","agreements","only","permit","viewing","downloading","printing","using","training","third","party","separate","authorization","basic","principles","members","understand","purposes","characteristics","apply","critical","thinking","balance","creativity","with","social","core","transparency","accuracy","throughout","process","domain","specific","considerations","education","administration","guidance","researchers","should","improve","efficiency","while","maintaining","practicing","responsible","provides","an","checklist","cite","sources","avoid","rights","infringement","input","sensitive","verify","supplementary","advises","check","target","journal","editorial","planning","stage","vary","whether","llms","can","generated","text","citing","generative","papers","risks","plagiarism","charges","according","styles","mla","apa","chicago","notes","many","institutions","clear","operate","uncertainty","within","extremely","limited","hosts","korean","english","pdf","versions","its","page","published","january","presence","coursework","exams","entry","academic","integrity","approved","named","teaching","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"u-tokyo","entityName":"The University of Tokyo","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/u-tokyo","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/u-tokyo.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-09T22:32:13.120Z","claimCount":22,"sourceCount":6,"country":"Japan","region":"Tokyo","aliases":["The University of Tokyo","u-tokyo","QS 2026 =36","UT","ac.jp","utelecon.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Tokyo is listed as QS 2026 rank =36. The University of Tokyo has 22 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AIツールの授業における利用について（ver. 1.0）","Notification to Students on the Use of AI Tools in Classes (ver 1.0)","Policies and Guidelines - utelecon - 東京大学","Policy on the use of AI tools in classes - utelecon (English)","当面の全学構成員向け生成AIサービス提供方針について","生成AI関連情報 - utelecon"],"claimSummaries":["University of Tokyo will not uniformly prohibit generative AI tools like ChatGPT in education; instead, it actively explores their potential while continuing dialogue on practical knowledge and long-term impact.","UTokyo does not enforce a blanket prohibition on generative AI tools; it actively explores their potential and provides practical guidance.","UTokyo states it is unacceptable to present AI-generated text as one's own when submitting class assignments.","UTokyo warns students to never input confidential information, personal information, or unpublished research results into AI tools, as the information might be leaked or used for AI training.","University of Tokyo will not uniformly prohibit generative AI tools like ChatGPT in educational settings, per official policy signed by the Executive Vice President.","UTokyo leaves decisions on AI tool use in individual classes to faculty, who should decide based on maximizing educational effectiveness rather than following a blanket university rule.","UTokyo requires instructors who allow AI use to explain associated risks to students: information leakage, data concentration in few companies, copyright concerns, and potential bias.","UTokyo states that submitting AI-generated answers by copy-pasting them entirely provides no learning effect and should basically not be permitted.","UTokyo warns faculty not to over-rely on AI detection tools, as they are insufficient evidence of inappropriate student AI use given the rapid evolution of generative tools.","UTokyo instructs faculty not to input exam questions directly into generative AI tools, as exams are highly confidential documents.","UTokyo centers its university-wide generative AI service on Microsoft Copilot, leveraging existing Microsoft contracts for low operational and cost burden.","UTokyo does not uniformly prohibit generative AI tools; it actively explores their potential in education and research while providing practical usage guidance.","UTokyo leaves the decision on whether to allow AI tools and the conditions for their use to the discretion of individual instructors, varying by class.","UTokyo advises faculty to test their own assignments with generative AI tools to understand how well AI can complete them, and use this understanding to inform assessment design.","UTokyo requires instructors to clearly state their AI stance per class/assignment, and when allowing AI use, to explain risks: information leakage, data concentration, copyright concerns, and potential bias.","UTokyo warns faculty that AI detection tools should not be over-relied upon, as their judgments are insufficient evidence of inappropriate student AI use.","UTokyo policy states that even when AI use is allowed, simply copying and pasting AI-generated answers should not be accepted as it provides no learning effect.","UTokyo provides Gemini and Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat as university-wide contracted AI chat services; there is no university-wide ChatGPT contract.","UTokyo warns that using AI-generated results as-is may entail future legal risks related to copyright and design rights.","UTokyo provides AI features embedded in multiple platforms (Zoom AI Companion, Slack AI, Cisco AI Assistant, Slido AI, Copilot in Teams) through university-wide contracts.","UTokyo has established security guidelines for generative AI use (March 2024), referenced in the AI service policy.","UTokyo's utelecon portal maintains a Policies and Guidelines index page linking to BYOD policy, generative AI information, and AI tools notifications."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["tokyo","the","university","of","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","36","has","22","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","japan","ut","ac","jp","utelecon","adm","ver","notification","to","students","on","use","tools","in","classes","policies","guidelines","english","will","not","uniformly","prohibit","generative","like","chatgpt","education","instead","it","actively","explores","their","potential","while","continuing","dialogue","practical","knowledge","long","term","impact","utokyo","does","enforce","blanket","prohibition","provides","guidance","states","unacceptable","present","generated","text","one","own","when","submitting","class","assignments","warns","never","input","confidential","information","personal","or","unpublished","research","results","into","might","be","leaked","used","for","training","educational","settings","per","signed","by","executive","vice","president","leaves","decisions","tool","individual","faculty","who","should","decide","based","maximizing","effectiveness","rather","than","following","rule","requires","instructors","allow","explain","associated","risks","leakage","data","concentration","few","companies","copyright","concerns","bias","that","answers","copy","pasting","them","entirely","no","learning","effect","basically","permitted","over","rely","detection","they","are","insufficient","inappropriate","student","given","rapid","evolution","instructs","exam","questions","directly","exams","highly","documents","centers","its","wide","service","microsoft","copilot","leveraging","existing","contracts","low","operational","cost","burden","providing","usage","decision","whether","conditions","discretion","varying","advises","test","with","understand","how","well","can","complete","this","understanding","inform","assessment","design","clearly","stance","assignment","allowing","relied","upon","judgments","even","allowed","simply","copying","accepted","gemini","365","chat","contracted","services","there","contract","using","may","entail","future","legal","related","rights","features","embedded","multiple","platforms","zoom","companion","slack","cisco","assistant","slido","teams","through","established","security","march","2024","referenced","portal","maintains","index","page","linking","byod","notifications","presence","disclosure","coursework","privacy","entry","academic","integrity","approved","named","teaching","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"northwestern-university","entityName":"Northwestern University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/northwestern-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/northwestern-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T00:06:30.000Z","claimCount":6,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"Evanston","aliases":["Northwestern University","QS 2026 =42","NU","it.northwestern.edu","libguides.northwestern.edu","northwestern.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Northwestern University is listed as QS 2026 rank =42. Northwestern University has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Integrity & Citing AI - Using AI Tools in Your Research","Generative AI on Your Terms: Data and Privacy 101","Getting Started with Generative AI","Instructor Options","Northwestern Guidance on the Use of Generative AI","Overview of Generative AI for Learning"],"claimSummaries":["Northwestern guidance states that faculty, staff, students, and affiliates should not enter institutional data into any generative AI tools that have not been validated by the University for appropriate use and have explicit permission of the data provider.","Northwestern provides instructors with three course-level AI policy options: Open (GAI permitted), Conditional (GAI permitted when explicitly authorized), and Closed (GAI prohibited).","Northwestern classifies data into four levels. Only Level 1 (non-confidential, public) data may be uploaded to publicly available generative AI tools. Data above Level 1 requires tools approved through Northwestern IT procurement and security review.","Microsoft Copilot is Northwestern's primary approved generative AI tool. All students, faculty, and staff have access to free Copilot Chat, with full Copilot for Microsoft 365 available as a paid subscription.","Unauthorized use of ChatGPT or other Generative AI tools is considered cheating and/or plagiarism per Northwestern Academic Integrity guidelines.","Microsoft Copilot, when signed in with a Northwestern Microsoft account, is approved for Level 2 and generally Level 3 data. Publicly available AI tools (ChatGPT, Gemini, MidJourney) may only be used with Level 1 public data."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["northwestern","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","42","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","evanston","nu","it","edu","libguides","academic","integrity","citing","using","tools","in","your","research","generative","on","terms","data","privacy","101","getting","started","with","instructor","options","guidance","use","of","overview","for","learning","that","faculty","staff","students","affiliates","should","not","enter","institutional","into","any","have","been","validated","by","appropriate","explicit","permission","provider","provides","instructors","three","course","level","open","gai","permitted","conditional","when","explicitly","authorized","closed","prohibited","classifies","four","levels","only","non","confidential","may","be","uploaded","to","publicly","available","above","requires","approved","through","procurement","security","microsoft","copilot","primary","tool","all","access","free","chat","full","365","paid","subscription","unauthorized","chatgpt","or","other","considered","cheating","plagiarism","per","guidelines","signed","account","generally","gemini","midjourney","used","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","named","services","teaching"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-michigan-ann-arbor","entityName":"University of Michigan-Ann Arbor","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-10T00:04:00.000Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":8,"country":"United States","region":"Ann Arbor","aliases":["University of Michigan-Ann Arbor","QS 2026 45","UMAA","academictechnology.umich.edu","crlt.umich.edu","genai.umich.edu","its.umich.edu","umich.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Michigan-Ann Arbor is listed as QS 2026 rank 45. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 8 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Integrity, GenAI - CRLT","Appropriate Use of AI Services & U-M Policy","Course and Assignment (Re-)Design","Course Policies & Syllabi Statements","Generative AI Academic Integrity Resources","ITS AI Services","U-M Guidance for Faculty/Instructors","U-M Guidance for Students"],"claimSummaries":["U-M ITS offers a generative AI platform available to all active U-M faculty, staff, and students on the Ann Arbor, Flint, and Dearborn campuses and Michigan Medicine, with service offerings described as equitable and accessible.","U-M does not recommend the use of AI-detection technology given their high error rate. False positives and negatives are possible, and even likely.","U-M requires using approved ITS AI Services for university data. Only data classified as Low may be used with AI services lacking a U-M contract or data agreement.","U-M requires that AI-generated computer code is always reviewed by a human, with professionally trained peer code reviews for applications handling Restricted or High data.","U-M ITS AI Services include HIPAA safeguards and may be used with Protected Health Information (PHI).","U-M requires AI use in teaching and learning to align with principles of honesty, candor, openness, and integrity in scholarship and research, including appropriate disclosure and citation.","U-M leaves GenAI policy to individual instructors, who may allow, restrict, or forbid AI use in their courses. Course policies should be clearly articulated in syllabi.","U-M advises students that data shared with external AI tools is not private and may be accessible by external parties. Students should not share private or sensitive information."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","michigan","ann","arbor","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","45","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","umaa","academictechnology","umich","edu","crlt","genai","its","academic","integrity","appropriate","use","services","course","assignment","re","design","policies","syllabi","statements","generative","resources","guidance","for","faculty","instructors","students","offers","platform","available","to","all","active","staff","on","flint","dearborn","campuses","medicine","with","service","offerings","described","equitable","accessible","does","not","recommend","detection","technology","given","their","high","error","rate","false","positives","negatives","are","possible","even","likely","requires","using","approved","data","only","classified","low","may","be","used","lacking","contract","or","agreement","that","generated","computer","code","always","reviewed","by","human","professionally","trained","peer","reviews","applications","handling","restricted","include","hipaa","safeguards","protected","health","information","phi","in","teaching","learning","align","principles","honesty","candor","openness","scholarship","research","including","disclosure","citation","leaves","individual","who","allow","restrict","forbid","courses","should","clearly","articulated","advises","shared","external","tools","private","parties","share","sensitive","presence","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","named","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"cornell-university","entityName":"Cornell University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/cornell-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/cornell-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T04:55:45Z","claimCount":26,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"Ithaca","aliases":["Cornell University","QS 2026 16","CU","academicinnovation.cornell.edu","cornell.edu","it.cornell.edu","teaching.cornell.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Cornell University is listed as QS 2026 rank 16. Cornell University has 26 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI & Academic Integrity | Center for Teaching Innovation","AI Course Policy Icons | Center for Teaching Innovation","CU Committee Report: Generative Artificial Intelligence for Education and Pedagogy","GenAI in Teaching and Learning – Academic Innovation","Generative Artificial Intelligence | Center for Teaching Innovation","Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence | IT@Cornell"],"claimSummaries":["Cornell's committee report states that any information educators are obligated to keep private under FERPA or HIPAA should not be shared with generative AI tools or uploaded to third-party AI vendors.","Cornell's committee report states that original research or content owned by Cornell University, students, or employees should not be uploaded to AI tools, as it can become part of the AI tool's training data.","Cornell's committee report does not recommend the use of generative AI for summative evaluation or grading of student work, stating that evaluation and grading is among the most important tasks entrusted to faculty.","Cornell's committee report recommends three policy approaches for generative AI use: prohibit GAI where it interferes with foundational learning, allow with attribution where it supports higher-level thinking, and encourage use where it enables exploration and creative thinking.","Cornell's committee report discourages the use of automatic detection algorithms for academic integrity violations using generative AI, stating they cannot decisively provide evidence and could lead to unfairly identifying violations, including bias against non-native speakers.","Cornell's IT guidelines state that users are accountable for their work regardless of the tools used to produce it, and when using generative AI tools must always verify information for errors and biases and exercise caution to avoid copyright infringement.","Cornell's IT guidelines prohibit entering any confidential, proprietary, federally or state regulated, or otherwise sensitive or restricted Cornell information into public generative AI tools, as such information becomes public and may be stored and used by anyone.","Cornell has established seven core principles for generative AI in education: integrity of the faculty-student relation, commitment to experimentation and evidence, centrality of faculty judgment, responsiveness to student needs, recognition of both AI goods and harms, respect for institutional and disciplinary heterogeneity, and renewal of Cornell's core mission and values.","Cornell recommends that faculty clearly communicate their generative AI policies in their syllabus, in assignment instructions, and verbally in class to support student learning and reduce academic integrity violations.","Cornell does not recommend using automatic AI detection algorithms for academic integrity violations, citing their unreliability and inability to provide definitive evidence, and the risk of wrongly accusing students.","Cornell's committee report recommends that the Code of Academic Integrity be updated with clear and explicit language on the use of generative AI, indicating that individual faculty have authority to determine when AI use is prohibited, attributed, or encouraged.","Cornell's IT guidelines endorse a flexible framework in which faculty and instructors can choose to prohibit, allow with attribution, or encourage generative AI use in education.","Cornell established the GenAI Education Working Group in spring 2024 with all-college representation including faculty, staff, and students, as the central body for developing new ideas, policies, and practices around generative AI in the classroom.","Cornell developed seven standardized AI course policy icons (ANY-AI, AT, UA, PP, AS, ER, AI-FREE) to help instructors clearly communicate AI use expectations in syllabi and assignments, which can be combined for nuanced policies.","When generative AI use is permitted in a course, Cornell advises instructors to clarify expectations for documentation and attribution, including citing the AI tool creator (e.g., OpenAI for ChatGPT) when directly quoting AI-generated text in both in-text citations and reference lists.","Cornell's Center for Teaching Innovation recommends that faculty discuss course policies and expectations around the use of generative AI tools with their students and clearly communicate when and in what ways use of such tools is permitted or not.","Cornell developed a set of course policy icons through the GenAI Advisory Council to help instructors clearly and consistently communicate AI use expectations to students in syllabi and assignment instructions.","Cornell holds students responsible for verifying the accuracy of AI-generated output and references when AI use is allowed for an assignment.","Cornell describes measures faculty may use to evaluate potential AI-related academic integrity concerns, including requiring students to verify citations and references, requesting verification of references or methods, and informing students that they should expect to verbally explain submitted work.","Cornell's IT guidelines state that use of generative AI in academic research is governed by the Cornell University Task Force Report 'Generative AI in Academic Research: Perspectives and Cultural Norms' (December 2023).","Cornell's IT guidelines state that use of generative AI for administrative purposes must comply with the Cornell Generative AI in Administration Task Force Report (January 2024).","Cornell's 'AI+AI' initiative aims to strengthen and update academic integrity procedures to better reflect the presence of generative AI, including better models for attributing student use of GenAI and development of evidentiary standards for adjudicating GenAI-related violations.","Cornell considers generative AI literacy essential for both students and faculty, defining it as the ability to understand, evaluate, and critically engage with generative AI technologies.","Cornell provides sample syllabus language for an AI-FREE policy that prohibits all generative AI tools, including tools that help reorganize and edit written work, to ensure development of foundational concepts and skills.","Cornell provides sample syllabus language for an AS-UA policy where AI use is generally discouraged but permitted for select assignments with proper attribution, requiring students to cite the AI tool creator.","Cornell's AI course policy icons include a 'PP' (Privacy Protecting) icon indicating that generative AI use is permitted but no copyrighted or proprietary class materials should be uploaded unless otherwise specified."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["cornell","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","16","has","26","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","ithaca","cu","academicinnovation","edu","it","teaching","academic","integrity","center","for","innovation","course","icons","committee","report","generative","artificial","intelligence","education","pedagogy","genai","in","learning","guidelines","that","any","information","educators","are","obligated","to","keep","private","under","ferpa","or","hipaa","should","not","be","shared","with","tools","uploaded","third","party","vendors","research","content","owned","by","students","employees","can","become","part","of","tool","training","data","does","recommend","use","summative","evaluation","grading","student","work","stating","among","most","important","tasks","entrusted","faculty","recommends","three","approaches","prohibit","gai","where","interferes","foundational","allow","attribution","supports","higher","level","thinking","encourage","enables","exploration","creative","discourages","automatic","detection","algorithms","violations","using","they","cannot","decisively","provide","could","lead","unfairly","identifying","including","bias","against","non","native","speakers","users","accountable","their","regardless","used","produce","when","must","always","verify","errors","biases","exercise","caution","avoid","copyright","infringement","entering","confidential","proprietary","federally","regulated","otherwise","sensitive","restricted","into","such","becomes","may","stored","anyone","established","seven","core","principles","relation","commitment","experimentation","centrality","judgment","responsiveness","needs","recognition","both","goods","harms","respect","institutional","disciplinary","heterogeneity","renewal","mission","values","clearly","communicate","policies","syllabus","assignment","instructions","verbally","class","support","reduce","citing","unreliability","inability","definitive","risk","wrongly","accusing","code","updated","clear","explicit","on","indicating","individual","have","authority","determine","prohibited","attributed","encouraged","endorse","flexible","framework","which","instructors","choose","working","group","spring","2024","all","college","representation","staff","central","body","developing","new","ideas","practices","around","classroom","developed","standardized","at","ua","pp","er","free","help","expectations","syllabi","assignments","combined","nuanced","permitted","advises","clarify","documentation","creator","openai","chatgpt","directly","quoting","generated","text","citations","reference","lists","discuss","what","ways","set","through","advisory","council","consistently","holds","responsible","verifying","accuracy","output","references","allowed","an","describes","measures","evaluate","potential","related","concerns","requiring","requesting","verification","methods","informing","expect","explain","submitted","governed","task","force","perspectives","cultural","norms","december","2023","administrative","purposes","comply","administration","january","initiative","aims","strengthen","update","procedures","better","reflect","presence","models","attributing","development","evidentiary","standards","adjudicating","considers","literacy","essential","defining","ability","understand","critically","engage","technologies","provides","sample","prohibits","reorganize","edit","written","ensure","concepts","skills","generally","discouraged","but","select","proper","cite","include","privacy","protecting","icon","no","copyrighted","materials","unless","specified","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","approved","named","services","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"peking-university","entityName":"Peking University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/peking-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/peking-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.9,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T04:55:45Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":1,"country":"China (Mainland)","region":"Beijing","aliases":["Peking University","QS 2026 14","PU","edu.cn","scielab.pku.edu.cn"],"fields":{"summary":"Peking University is listed as QS 2026 rank 14. Peking University has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 1 official source attribution. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["使用规范说明 - AI科研诚信平台"],"claimSummaries":["Peking University's AI Scientific Integrity Platform defines AI use boundaries across seven research stages: topic selection, literature search and management, research design and implementation, paper writing, paper submission, paper review, and grant application and review.","Peking University's AI use guidelines apply to faculty, students, researchers, and administrators who use generative AI or other AI-assisted tools in teaching, research, and management activities.","Peking University classifies AI use in research into three tiers: open use (low risk, broadly applicable), limited use (moderate risk, requires verification and constraints), and prohibited use (high risk or violation, forbidden).","Peking University distinguishes two levels of AI involvement in research: instrumental assistance (using AI as a tool to handle routine or repetitive tasks) and replacement completion (using AI to independently complete tasks involving core intellectual contribution and creative labor).","Peking University's AI Scientific Integrity Platform synthesizes AI use policies from 18 domestic and international sources, including Chinese government agencies (MOST, NSFC), Chinese universities (Fudan, Nanjing, Sichuan), international bodies (EU Commission, NIH), and universities (Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, UCL, Oxford, MIT)."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["peking","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","14","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attribution","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","china","mainland","beijing","pu","edu","cn","scielab","pku","scientific","integrity","platform","defines","use","boundaries","across","seven","research","stages","topic","selection","literature","search","management","design","implementation","paper","writing","submission","grant","application","guidelines","apply","to","faculty","students","researchers","administrators","who","generative","or","other","assisted","tools","in","teaching","activities","classifies","into","three","tiers","open","low","risk","broadly","applicable","limited","moderate","requires","verification","constraints","prohibited","high","violation","forbidden","distinguishes","two","levels","of","involvement","instrumental","assistance","using","tool","handle","routine","repetitive","tasks","replacement","completion","independently","complete","involving","core","intellectual","contribution","creative","labor","synthesizes","policies","18","domestic","international","sources","including","chinese","government","agencies","most","nsfc","universities","fudan","nanjing","sichuan","bodies","eu","commission","nih","harvard","yale","cambridge","ucl","oxford","mit","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","academic","approved","named","services","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-melbourne","entityName":"The University of Melbourne","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-melbourne","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-melbourne.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T04:55:45Z","claimCount":18,"sourceCount":5,"country":"Australia","region":"Parkville","aliases":["The University of Melbourne","university-of-melbourne","QS 2026 19","UM","about.unimelb.edu.au","edu.au","melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au","msd.unimelb.edu.au","students.unimelb.edu.au"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Melbourne is listed as QS 2026 rank 19. The University of Melbourne has 18 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["GenAI at Melbourne","Generative AI in T&L at the University of Melbourne","Official statements from The University of Melbourne","UoM Submission: Inquiry into Generative AI in Education","What Is This Guide? - Melbourne School of Design"],"claimSummaries":["At the University of Melbourne, using GenAI tools to produce work submitted for assessment without acknowledgement constitutes academic misconduct under cl. 4.13 of the Student Academic Integrity Policy (MPF1310).","A high AI score in Turnitin's writing detection report at the University of Melbourne is not proof that academic misconduct has taken place and does not on its own constitute grounds for making an allegation of academic misconduct.","Students must check with their Subject Coordinator before using GenAI for assessment-related work at the University of Melbourne.","University of Melbourne assessment materials and teaching materials constitute University IP and should never be tested on third-party external GenAI platforms such as ChatGPT; any such testing must be done only within the University's secure SparkAI platform.","University of Melbourne students must appropriately cite any use of GenAI tools in the preparation of assessment submissions.","At the University of Melbourne, generative AI tools can only be used in research outputs where the material generated or substantially altered by these tools is acknowledged according to the University's policy and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.","The University of Melbourne advises researchers that they should not share confidential information or information about an innovation in a generative AI prompt, as that may mean the IP is no longer owned by the researcher or by the University.","University of Melbourne students must not upload personal information (full name, date of birth, address, or other confidential/sensitive/private information) to GenAI tools.","University of Melbourne students must not upload copyrighted material (such as lecture slides or subject material) to AI tools without permission, as this may violate the intellectual property rights of creators.","Each University of Melbourne subject coordinator is responsible for setting out the bounds of appropriate GenAI use within their subject, and is strongly encouraged to consider possible use case scenarios, set clear boundaries, and have conversations with students.","The University of Melbourne states that University IP cannot be uploaded to external sites and recommends using the University's SparkAI platform when staff want AI to review University materials.","At the University of Melbourne, use of GenAI tools for marking or grading should never be a substitute for staff exercising their own evaluative judgement.","The University of Melbourne advises staff to model the transparency requested from students by acknowledging the use of any GenAI tools in materials provided to students.","University of Melbourne staff should consider and provide advice on the limits of acceptable use of AI-powered translation and editing tools (e.g. Grammarly, Google Translate) in their subjects, as student use can extend to the point where students are no longer expressing their own ideas.","The University of Melbourne recommends that universities should have autonomy over their own generative AI policies and that the Australian Government develop optional guidance for the sector on the use of generative AI in teaching, learning, assessment, and research.","The University of Melbourne has adopted AI Principles designed to guide actions around the adoption and use of AI tools and systems across the institution.","University of Melbourne students must produce the text, code, designs, or images they are being assessed on themselves, not via GenAI, in order to develop the skills and capabilities their degree claims they have.","The University of Melbourne has published a Statement on Graduate Research and digital assistance tools governing the use of AI tools by Graduate Researchers."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","melbourne","the","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","19","has","18","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","australia","parkville","um","about","unimelb","edu","au","cshe","msd","students","genai","at","generative","in","statements","uom","submission","inquiry","into","education","what","this","guide","school","design","using","tools","to","produce","work","submitted","for","assessment","without","acknowledgement","constitutes","academic","misconduct","under","cl","13","student","integrity","mpf1310","high","score","turnitin","writing","detection","report","not","proof","that","taken","place","does","on","its","own","constitute","grounds","making","an","allegation","must","check","with","their","subject","coordinator","before","related","materials","teaching","ip","should","never","be","tested","third","party","external","platforms","such","chatgpt","any","testing","done","only","within","secure","sparkai","platform","appropriately","cite","use","preparation","submissions","can","used","research","outputs","where","material","generated","or","substantially","altered","by","these","acknowledged","according","australian","code","responsible","conduct","advises","researchers","they","share","confidential","information","innovation","prompt","may","mean","no","longer","owned","researcher","upload","personal","full","name","date","birth","address","other","sensitive","private","copyrighted","lecture","slides","permission","violate","intellectual","property","rights","creators","each","setting","out","bounds","appropriate","strongly","encouraged","consider","possible","case","scenarios","set","clear","boundaries","have","conversations","states","cannot","uploaded","sites","recommends","when","staff","want","marking","grading","substitute","exercising","evaluative","judgement","model","transparency","requested","acknowledging","provided","provide","advice","limits","acceptable","powered","translation","editing","grammarly","google","translate","subjects","extend","point","are","expressing","ideas","universities","autonomy","over","policies","government","develop","optional","guidance","sector","learning","adopted","principles","designed","actions","around","adoption","systems","across","institution","text","designs","images","being","assessed","themselves","via","order","skills","capabilities","degree","claims","published","statement","graduate","digital","assistance","governing","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","data","entry","approved","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"unsw-sydney","entityName":"The University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/unsw-sydney","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/unsw-sydney.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T04:55:45Z","claimCount":29,"sourceCount":7,"country":"Australia","region":"Sydney","aliases":["The University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney)","unsw-sydney","QS 2026 20","UNSW","edu.au","education.unsw.edu.au","inside.unsw.edu.au","my.unswcollege.edu.au","teaching.unsw.edu.au","unsw.edu.au"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) is listed as QS 2026 rank 20. The University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) has 29 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Are you aware of UNSW's new AI principles? | Inside UNSW","Guidance on AI in assessment | UNSW Staff Teaching Gateway","Helping you guide your students | UNSW Staff Teaching Gateway","June update: Generative AI at UNSW","Student AI Guidelines | UNSW College Current Students Website","UNSW's AI Guidelines and Framework | UNSW Staff Teaching Gateway","Using AI in university | Current Students – UNSW Sydney"],"claimSummaries":["UNSW uses a Levels of AI Assistance framework with six categories for assessments: No Assistance, Simple Editing Assistance, Planning or Design Assistance, Assistance with Attribution, Generative AI Software-based Assessments, and Not Applicable.","UNSW defines six high-level categories for permitted AI use in assessments: No Assistance, Simple Editing Assistance, Planning/Design Assistance, Assistance with Attribution, Generative AI Software-based Assessments, and Not Applicable.","Under UNSW's 'No Assistance' level, students are not permitted to use any generative AI tools, software, or service to search for or generate information or answers.","At UNSW, the unauthorised or unacknowledged use of AI in assessments is classified as cheating and considered student misconduct under the Code of Conduct and Values.","UNSW has published six AI principles: AI use must benefit UNSW and society; be equitable and respectful of human rights; be trustworthy, safe, and reliable; be transparent; be identifiable, explainable, and contestable; and be secure and resilient.","UNSW's first key principle for AI in assessment requires staff to be honest and transparent about the use of any AI tool where it would reasonably be expected that use of the tool would be disclosed.","UNSW's second key principle for AI in assessment requires that any AI-based output must be reviewed with all due diligence before being released or relied upon, particularly to avoid bias and factual errors.","UNSW states that as a rule, markers must not use AI platforms for marking or grading student work.","UNSW only authorises the use of Turnitin's AI Writing Detection Tool for detecting improper AI use in student work; UNSW IT has not approved other detection tools due to privacy and accuracy concerns.","Where unauthorised AI use in an assessment is admitted or determined at UNSW, a finding of serious student misconduct is made as a breach of Principle 3 of the Student Code of Conduct, with penalties consistent with Serious Student Misconduct and Serious Plagiarism (typically 00FL for the course, suspension, or exclusion).","UNSW requires that students must follow assessment instructions regarding AI use, that what students present must be their own work, and that students must acknowledge all sources including AI as an external source using proper referencing.","UNSW College students may only use AI for an assessment if the instructions in the Course Outline permit its use.","UNSW College requires that if AI is permitted for an assessment, students must acknowledge and reference the AI tool using the referencing style for their course and program (e.g., APA Style Referencing 7th edition).","UNSW penalties for unauthorised AI use in assessments may include a fail grade, a mark of zero for the course, suspension, or permanent exclusion.","UNSW advises students given permission to use AI in assessments to always clearly acknowledge that use when planning, designing, or writing their assessment.","UNSW requires that when ChatGPT or other forms of GenAI are accepted as part of an assessment, academics must ensure the tools are easily accessible for all students with no physical, geographical, or financial restrictions.","UNSW's investigation process for suspected improper AI use involves five steps: initial sense-check, checking signs of AI writing, discussing with the student, contacting the School Student Integrity Adviser (SSIA), and referral to the Conduct & Integrity Office.","UNSW states that students are entitled to use generative AI to the extent specified by course instructions or university rules, and that assessment instructions should set out acceptable use of AI tools.","UNSW College recommends Microsoft Copilot as the only generative AI platform for staff and students, as it provides commercial data protection and is the only platform recommended where generative AI use is allowed in coursework and assessment.","UNSW provides academics with access to Turnitin's AI detection tool for assessments submitted through Moodle Turnitin Assignment or Inspera, but notes this is not always conclusive evidence of improper AI use.","UNSW classifies Grammarly, Quillbot, and translation tools such as Google Translate, DeepL, and Baidu Translate as forms of generative AI.","UNSW advises students not to include any personal or sensitive information in AI prompts, including addresses, names, emails, zID, or intellectual property, and recommends using Microsoft Copilot with a UNSW account for data privacy.","UNSW has developed an AI capability framework for teaching staff covering common knowledge (what is AI, prompts, evaluating outputs), AI governance, ethical and responsible use, assessment and learning, and technology (Microsoft Copilot, Adobe Firefly, Scite.ai).","UNSW activated Microsoft Copilot with Commercial Data Protection for all staff and students with a zID in May 2024, providing a secure platform where sensitive information is stored and accessed only by authorised staff.","UNSW College permits AI tools for refining writing only when an AI assessment icon indicates it is allowed, for purposes including refining spelling and grammar, revising style and tone, improving clarity, improving vocabulary, checking similarity, assisting proofreading, and self-marking against a rubric.","UNSW warns students that generative AI tools may produce invalid or unreliable information ('fabrications' or 'hallucinations') and advises them to verify the accuracy of AI outputs.","UNSW has an AI leadership group that serves as a clearinghouse for critical issues and strategic initiatives and plays a pivotal role in guiding enterprise decisions on AI.","UNSW has adopted Microsoft Copilot, Adobe Firefly, and Scite.ai as its approved AI tools for staff use.","UNSW's AI Leadership Group endorsed and published principles on the Ethical and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence at UNSW in 2024, designed to regulate AI use, support a positive approach, and promote world-leading AI research."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["unsw","sydney","the","university","of","new","south","wales","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","20","has","29","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","australia","edu","au","education","inside","my","unswcollege","teaching","are","you","aware","principles","guidance","on","in","assessment","staff","gateway","helping","guide","your","students","june","update","generative","at","student","guidelines","college","current","website","framework","using","uses","levels","assistance","with","six","categories","for","assessments","no","simple","editing","planning","or","design","attribution","software","based","not","applicable","defines","high","level","permitted","use","under","to","any","tools","service","search","generate","information","answers","unauthorised","unacknowledged","classified","cheating","considered","misconduct","code","conduct","values","published","must","benefit","society","be","equitable","respectful","human","rights","trustworthy","safe","reliable","transparent","identifiable","explainable","contestable","secure","resilient","first","key","principle","requires","honest","about","tool","where","it","would","reasonably","expected","that","disclosed","second","output","reviewed","all","due","diligence","before","being","released","relied","upon","particularly","avoid","bias","factual","errors","states","rule","markers","platforms","marking","grading","work","only","authorises","turnitin","writing","detection","detecting","improper","approved","other","privacy","accuracy","concerns","an","admitted","determined","finding","serious","made","breach","penalties","consistent","plagiarism","typically","00fl","course","suspension","exclusion","follow","instructions","regarding","what","present","their","own","acknowledge","sources","including","external","proper","referencing","may","if","outline","permit","its","reference","style","program","apa","7th","edition","include","fail","grade","mark","zero","permanent","advises","given","permission","always","clearly","when","designing","chatgpt","forms","genai","accepted","part","academics","ensure","easily","accessible","physical","geographical","financial","restrictions","investigation","process","suspected","involves","five","steps","initial","sense","check","checking","signs","discussing","contacting","school","integrity","adviser","ssia","referral","office","entitled","extent","specified","by","rules","should","set","out","acceptable","recommends","microsoft","copilot","platform","provides","commercial","data","protection","recommended","allowed","coursework","access","submitted","through","moodle","assignment","inspera","but","notes","this","conclusive","classifies","grammarly","quillbot","translation","such","google","translate","deepl","baidu","personal","sensitive","prompts","addresses","names","emails","zid","intellectual","property","account","developed","capability","covering","common","knowledge","evaluating","outputs","governance","ethical","responsible","learning","technology","adobe","firefly","scite","activated","2024","providing","stored","accessed","authorised","permits","refining","icon","indicates","purposes","spelling","grammar","revising","tone","improving","clarity","vocabulary","similarity","assisting","proofreading","self","against","rubric","warns","produce","invalid","unreliable","fabrications","hallucinations","them","verify","leadership","group","serves","clearinghouse","critical","issues","strategic","initiatives","plays","pivotal","role","guiding","enterprise","decisions","adopted","endorsed","artificial","intelligence","designed","regulate","support","positive","approach","promote","world","leading","research","presence","disclosure","exams","entry","academic","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"tsinghua-university","entityName":"Tsinghua University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/tsinghua-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/tsinghua-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T04:55:45Z","claimCount":11,"sourceCount":2,"country":"China (Mainland)","region":"Beijing","aliases":["Tsinghua University","QS 2026 =17","TU","edu.cn","tsinghua.edu.cn"],"fields":{"summary":"Tsinghua University is listed as QS 2026 rank =17. Tsinghua University has 11 source-backed AI policy claim records from 2 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["【深改进行时】《清华大学人工智能教育应用指导原则》发布","Tsinghua University releases comprehensive guiding principles for AI in education"],"claimSummaries":["Tsinghua University prohibits students from directly copying or mechanically paraphrasing AI-generated text, code, or other output and submitting it as academic coursework.","Tsinghua University prohibits using AI to replace academic training that graduate students are expected to complete independently, and strictly forbids AI-assisted ghostwriting, plagiarism, and fabrication in theses, dissertations, and practical achievements.","Tsinghua University prohibits teachers and students from using sensitive information, classified data, or unauthorized data to train or operate AI models.","Tsinghua University's Guiding Principles establish five core principles for AI in education: principal responsibility (AI as auxiliary tool, teachers and students as primary agents), compliance and integrity, data security, prudence and critical thinking, and fairness and inclusiveness.","Tsinghua University affirms that AI must remain an auxiliary tool and that teachers and students are the primary agents in teaching and learning (principal responsibility principle).","Tsinghua University requires teachers and students to disclose their use of AI and AI-generated content in accordance with regulations, as part of the 'compliance and integrity' principle.","Tsinghua University advises instructors to determine how AI should be used according to course objectives, clearly explain AI usage norms to students at the start of each course, and remain responsible for AI-generated teaching materials.","Tsinghua University requires graduate supervisors to provide normative guidance on AI use and maintain full-process oversight to ensure the integrity of academic training and the originality of theses, dissertations, and practical achievements.","Tsinghua University urges vigilance toward AI 'hallucinations' and stresses multi-source verification to guard against cognitive complacency from overreliance on AI (prudence and critical thinking principle).","Tsinghua University's Guiding Principles call for identifying and mitigating algorithmic bias and the digital divide to ensure technology serves the public good (fairness and inclusiveness principle).","Tsinghua University explicitly encourages and supports faculty and students to pursue innovative applications of AI in teaching and learning, and commits to recognizing and promoting exemplary practices."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["tsinghua","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","17","has","11","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","china","mainland","beijing","tu","edu","cn","releases","comprehensive","guiding","principles","for","in","education","prohibits","students","directly","copying","or","mechanically","paraphrasing","generated","text","code","other","output","submitting","it","academic","coursework","using","to","replace","training","that","graduate","are","expected","complete","independently","strictly","forbids","assisted","ghostwriting","plagiarism","fabrication","theses","dissertations","practical","achievements","teachers","sensitive","information","classified","data","unauthorized","train","operate","models","establish","five","core","principal","responsibility","auxiliary","tool","primary","agents","compliance","integrity","security","prudence","critical","thinking","fairness","inclusiveness","affirms","must","remain","an","teaching","learning","principle","requires","disclose","their","use","of","content","accordance","with","regulations","part","advises","instructors","determine","how","should","be","used","according","course","objectives","clearly","explain","usage","norms","at","start","each","responsible","materials","supervisors","provide","normative","guidance","on","maintain","full","process","oversight","ensure","originality","urges","vigilance","toward","hallucinations","stresses","multi","verification","guard","against","cognitive","complacency","overreliance","call","identifying","mitigating","algorithmic","bias","digital","divide","technology","serves","good","explicitly","encourages","supports","faculty","pursue","innovative","applications","commits","recognizing","promoting","exemplary","practices","presence","disclosure","exams","privacy","entry","approved","tools","named","services","research","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-california-berkeley","entityName":"University of California, Berkeley (UCB)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-california-berkeley","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-california-berkeley.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T04:55:45Z","claimCount":22,"sourceCount":5,"country":"United States","region":"Berkeley","aliases":["University of California, Berkeley (UCB)","university-of-california-berkeley","QS 2026 =17","UCB","academic-senate.berkeley.edu","ai.berkeley.edu","berkeley.edu","oercs.berkeley.edu","re-ai.berkeley.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"University of California, Berkeley (UCB) is listed as QS 2026 rank =17. University of California, Berkeley (UCB) has 22 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Appropriate Use of Generative AI Tools | Office of Ethics, Risk, and Compliance Services","Artificial Intelligence | Office of Ethics, Risk, and Compliance Services","Generative AI Guidance for Instructors 2025","Guidance on the use of AI | Berkeley AI Hub","Responsible Use of Generative AI - UC Berkeley 2025"],"claimSummaries":["UC Berkeley warns that individuals who accept click-through agreements for AI tools (such as OpenAI and ChatGPT terms of use) without delegated signature authority may face personal liability, including responsibility for compliance with terms and conditions.","UC Berkeley requires researchers to comply with varying license agreement terms before using or training AI tools with materials acquired from library-licensed resources or databases. Violations can result in personal liability and campus-wide loss of access to critical research resources.","UC Berkeley states that use of generative AI tools should be consistent with UC Berkeley's Principles of Community and the UC Principles of Responsible AI.","The UC Berkeley Academic Senate recommends that all faculty include a clear statement on their syllabus about course expectations regarding the use of Google Gemini or any other generative AI tool for course-related work. In the absence of such a statement, students may be more likely to use these technologies inappropriately.","The UC Berkeley Academic Senate states that generative AI detection tools are increasingly less accurate and that there are no validated generative AI detection tools available.","The UC Berkeley Academic Senate provides three sample syllabus statement frameworks for faculty: 'Full AI' (GenAI required), 'Some AI' (limited permitted use with restrictions), and 'No AI' (all GenAI use prohibited). Faculty should modify these to fit their course requirements.","The UC Berkeley Academic Senate recommends that for assignments where GenAI is not permitted, instructors should adopt enforcement mechanisms such as in-person proctored exams, an additional oral exam component, or a written statement of academic integrity, since no validated GenAI detection tools exist.","The UC Berkeley Academic Senate's 'Some AI' syllabus framework requires students to include an acknowledgement of their use of any generative AI system in submitted work, along with the prompts used and how the output was utilized.","At UC Berkeley, publicly-available information classified as Protection Level P1 may be freely used in generative AI tools.","The UC Berkeley Academic Senate advises that for assignments where instructors encourage or require GenAI tools, instructors must ensure students have access to the necessary computing resources. If non-campus-sanctioned resources are required, the instructor is responsible for providing access.","UC Berkeley requires users to use UC-licensed AI tools rather than individual consumer accounts to benefit from UC's contractual data protections when working with information more sensitive than Protection Level P1.","At UC Berkeley, AI tools procured by individual units must adhere to the approved Protection Level limitations advised by that unit, and units should clearly advise staff and users of the appropriate use and Protection Level limitations of their AI tools.","UC Berkeley prohibits the use of generative AI tools to complete academic work in a manner not allowed by the instructor.","UC Berkeley prohibits entering personal, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive information classified as Protection Level P2, P3, or P4 into generative AI tools, unless specifically allowed under UC's negotiated contracts with AI providers.","UC Berkeley prohibits entering FERPA-protected student records, non-public instructional materials, and proprietary or unpublished research into generative AI tools.","UC Berkeley requires that any new use of generative AI in studies or work must receive approval from the instructor or responsible unit head, and users should complete the AI Essentials Training and consult the CERC-AIR committee.","UC Berkeley warns that AI use involving highly-consequential automated decision-making requires extreme caution and should not be employed without prior consultation with appropriate campus entities including the responsible unit head. Examples include legal analysis, recruitment/personnel decisions, replacing represented employees, facial recognition security tools, and grading or assessment of student work.","UC Berkeley's Office of Ethics, Risk and Compliance provides centralized resources and guidance on the ethical and appropriate use of artificial intelligence, specifically generative AI, with a focus on privacy and compliance with existing laws and policies.","UC Berkeley states that units offering AI tools separately from campus or systemwide agreements should clearly advise staff and users of the appropriate use and Protection Level limitations of those tools.","UC Berkeley offers an 'AI Essentials' training for employees — a approximately 30-minute course covering foundational AI concepts, UC policies regarding AI tool usage, and opportunities for application in higher education.","The University of California system has established Responsible AI Principles comprising eight principles: Appropriateness; Transparency; Accuracy, Reliability and Safety; Fairness and Non-Discrimination; Privacy and Security; Human Values; Shared Benefit and Prosperity; and Accountability.","UC Berkeley has AI risk assessment pre-screening questions that employees can use to gauge the level of risk involved for an AI use case where AI is integrated into a product, service, or feature at the university. Depending on the risk level determined, the CERC-AIR subcommittee may be engaged for a broader risk assessment."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","california","berkeley","ucb","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","17","has","22","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","academic","senate","edu","oercs","re","appropriate","use","generative","tools","office","ethics","risk","compliance","services","artificial","intelligence","guidance","for","instructors","2025","on","hub","responsible","uc","warns","that","individuals","who","accept","click","through","agreements","such","openai","chatgpt","terms","without","delegated","signature","authority","may","face","personal","liability","including","responsibility","with","conditions","requires","researchers","to","comply","varying","license","agreement","before","using","or","training","materials","acquired","library","licensed","resources","databases","violations","can","result","in","campus","wide","loss","access","critical","research","should","be","consistent","principles","community","recommends","all","faculty","include","clear","statement","their","syllabus","about","course","expectations","regarding","google","gemini","any","other","tool","related","work","absence","students","more","likely","these","technologies","inappropriately","detection","are","increasingly","less","accurate","there","no","validated","available","provides","three","sample","frameworks","full","genai","required","some","limited","permitted","restrictions","prohibited","modify","fit","requirements","assignments","where","not","adopt","enforcement","mechanisms","person","proctored","exams","an","additional","oral","exam","component","written","integrity","since","exist","framework","acknowledgement","system","submitted","along","prompts","used","how","output","was","utilized","at","publicly","information","classified","protection","level","p1","freely","advises","encourage","require","must","ensure","have","necessary","computing","if","non","sanctioned","instructor","providing","users","rather","than","individual","consumer","accounts","benefit","contractual","data","protections","when","working","sensitive","procured","by","units","adhere","approved","limitations","advised","unit","clearly","advise","staff","prohibits","complete","manner","allowed","entering","confidential","proprietary","otherwise","p2","p3","p4","into","unless","specifically","under","negotiated","contracts","providers","ferpa","protected","student","instructional","unpublished","new","studies","receive","approval","head","essentials","consult","cerc","air","committee","involving","highly","consequential","automated","decision","making","extreme","caution","employed","prior","consultation","entities","examples","legal","analysis","recruitment","personnel","decisions","replacing","represented","employees","facial","recognition","security","grading","assessment","centralized","ethical","focus","privacy","existing","laws","policies","offering","separately","systemwide","those","offers","approximately","30","minute","covering","foundational","concepts","usage","opportunities","application","higher","education","established","comprising","eight","appropriateness","transparency","accuracy","reliability","safety","fairness","discrimination","human","values","shared","prosperity","accountability","pre","screening","questions","gauge","involved","case","integrated","product","service","feature","depending","determined","subcommittee","engaged","broader","presence","disclosure","coursework","entry","named","teaching","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-pennsylvania","entityName":"University of Pennsylvania","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-pennsylvania","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-pennsylvania.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T04:55:45Z","claimCount":19,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United States","region":"Philadelphia","aliases":["University of Pennsylvania","QS 2026 15","UP","academy.wharton.upenn.edu","almanac.upenn.edu","catalog.upenn.edu","cetli.upenn.edu","isc.upenn.edu","upenn.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Pennsylvania is listed as QS 2026 rank 15. University of Pennsylvania has 19 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Policy - Wharton Academy","Code of Academic Integrity","Generative AI & Your Teaching","Of Record: Statement on Guidance for the University of Pennsylvania Community on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence","Penn AI Guidance and Policies","Statement on Guidance for the University of Pennsylvania Community on Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence"],"claimSummaries":["Penn requires all community members (educators, staff, researchers, and students) to be transparent about the use of AI and to disclose when a work product was created wholly or partially using an AI tool.","Penn provides several licensed AI tools to its community, including Copilot Chat (Basic, free), Adobe Express (free), ChatGPT-EDU (purchase required), M365 Copilot Premium (purchase required), Gemini for Google Workspace (purchase required), Google NotebookLM (purchase required), Grammarly Pro (purchase required), Snowflake Data Analytics (purchase required), and Zoom AI Companion (free).","Users of AI at Penn are accountable for AI-generated content and should validate its accuracy with trusted first-party sources, being wary of misinformation or hallucinations.","Penn users should not input moderate or high-risk Penn data (per the Penn Data Risk Classification) or intellectual property into AI tools without careful consideration of data use policies, a protective contract, and review by Penn's Privacy Office and Office of Information Security.","It is not permissible under HIPAA or Penn Medicine policy to share patient or research participant information with open or public AI tools and services such as ChatGPT; individual patient data and data sets (even if deidentified) may not be exposed to such tools absent institutional approval.","Penn researchers should obtain IRB approvals prior to exposing research participant data to AI tools and should exercise caution when research involves high-risk data including PII and health information.","Penn's Office of Audit, Compliance & Privacy mandates that users of publicly available (unlicensed) AI tools must not enter any information that could identify a student, including names, ID numbers, email addresses, or detailed descriptions of student work or engagement that could be identifiable to others.","Penn mandates that student work (papers, projects) must not be entered into unlicensed AI tools without the student's permission, even if anonymized, because this work is part of the student's confidential academic record.","Instructors must not require students to enter their own work into unlicensed AI tools or use such tools in assignments; unlicensed tools may be used optionally by students at the instructor's discretion, but Penn-licensed tools should be used for mandatory coursework components.","Individual instructors at Penn determine their own policies related to acceptable student use of generative AI in coursework.","Penn community members should avoid uploading confidential or proprietary information to AI platforms prior to seeking patent or copyright protection, as doing so could jeopardize intellectual property rights.","University business processes using AI should have oversight, review, and verification of AI outputs in place to ensure reliability, consistency, and accuracy.","Penn educators should provide students with clear guidelines on the use of AI within coursework and should disclose to students when course materials have been created with AI or when AI detection software will be used.","In the absence of other guidance, Penn students should treat the use of AI as they would treat assistance from another person — if it is unacceptable to have another person substantially complete a task like writing an essay, it is also unacceptable to have AI complete the task.","Penn researchers should consult with department leadership and their discipline's publishing standards to determine how AI use should be accounted for with regard to authorship in publications.","At Wharton Academy, AI-generated work should be cited like any other reference material, including how and where students used AI-generated information; using AI-generated work without crediting the source is considered plagiarism.","Wharton Academy prohibits students from using AI to complete personal reflection or opinion-based tasks, from using AI to complete group assignments instead of collaborating with peers, and from using AI to cheat on exams or tests.","Wharton Academy prohibits students from directly copying answers from generative AI tools and submitting them as their own, from using AI to paraphrase or rewrite plagiarized content, and from posting AI-generated discussion posts within course community forums.","Wharton Academy permits students to use generative AI for brainstorming, learning efficiency, getting prompts, exploring different perspectives, asking for templates, getting preliminary feedback on written work, and language translation, at the discretion of faculty and instructional teams."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","pennsylvania","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","15","has","19","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","philadelphia","up","academy","wharton","upenn","edu","almanac","catalog","cetli","isc","code","academic","integrity","generative","your","teaching","statement","on","guidance","for","community","use","artificial","intelligence","penn","policies","requires","all","members","educators","staff","researchers","students","to","be","transparent","about","disclose","when","work","product","was","created","wholly","or","partially","using","an","tool","provides","several","licensed","tools","its","including","copilot","chat","basic","free","adobe","express","chatgpt","purchase","required","m365","premium","gemini","google","workspace","notebooklm","grammarly","pro","snowflake","data","analytics","zoom","companion","users","at","are","accountable","generated","content","should","validate","accuracy","with","trusted","first","party","sources","being","wary","misinformation","hallucinations","not","input","moderate","high","risk","per","classification","intellectual","property","into","without","careful","consideration","protective","contract","by","privacy","office","information","security","it","permissible","under","hipaa","medicine","share","patient","research","participant","open","services","such","individual","sets","even","if","deidentified","may","exposed","absent","institutional","approval","obtain","irb","approvals","prior","exposing","exercise","caution","involves","pii","health","audit","compliance","mandates","that","publicly","available","unlicensed","must","enter","any","could","identify","student","names","id","numbers","email","addresses","detailed","descriptions","engagement","identifiable","others","papers","projects","entered","permission","anonymized","because","this","part","confidential","instructors","require","their","own","in","assignments","used","optionally","instructor","discretion","but","mandatory","coursework","components","determine","related","acceptable","avoid","uploading","proprietary","platforms","seeking","patent","copyright","protection","doing","so","jeopardize","rights","business","processes","have","oversight","verification","outputs","place","ensure","reliability","consistency","provide","clear","guidelines","within","course","materials","been","detection","software","will","absence","other","treat","they","would","assistance","another","person","unacceptable","substantially","complete","task","like","writing","essay","also","consult","department","leadership","discipline","publishing","standards","how","accounted","regard","authorship","publications","cited","reference","material","where","crediting","considered","plagiarism","prohibits","personal","reflection","opinion","based","tasks","group","instead","collaborating","peers","cheat","exams","tests","directly","copying","answers","submitting","them","paraphrase","rewrite","plagiarized","posting","discussion","posts","forums","permits","brainstorming","learning","efficiency","getting","prompts","exploring","different","perspectives","asking","templates","preliminary","feedback","written","translation","faculty","instructional","teams","presence","disclosure","entry","approved","named","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"harvard-university","entityName":"Harvard University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/harvard-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/harvard-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T00:57:51Z","claimCount":12,"sourceCount":12,"country":"United States","region":"Cambridge","aliases":["Harvard University","QS 2026 5","HU","ari.hms.harvard.edu","bokcenter.harvard.edu","harvard.edu","huit.harvard.edu","it.hms.harvard.edu","oaisc.fas.harvard.edu","oue.fas.harvard.edu","provost.harvard.edu","registrar.gse.harvard.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Harvard University is listed as QS 2026 rank 5. Harvard University has 12 source-backed AI policy claim records from 12 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Integrity and Teaching With(out) AI","AI | Academic and Research Integrity","AI Assistant Guidelines","AI Syllabus Policies","Generative AI | HMS IT","Generative AI Guidance – Office of Undergraduate Education","Generative AI Guidelines","Generative AI Tool Comparison","Guidance for Faculty on Addressing AI-Related Academic Integrity Issues","Guidelines for Using ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools at Harvard","HGSE AI Policy on Student Use of Generative AI in Academic Work","Learn with Generative AI"],"claimSummaries":["University-wide: Level 2 and above confidential data (including non-public research data, finance, HR, student records, medical information) should not be entered into publicly-available generative AI tools. Such data may only be entered into generative AI tools that have been assessed and approved by Harvard's Information Security and Data Privacy office.","FAS (Faculty of Arts and Sciences) Office of Undergraduate Education policy: All faculty are required to inform students of the policies governing generative AI use in class. Faculty should post their AI policy on their Canvas site.","University-wide: All vendor generative AI tools not currently offered by HUIT must be assessed for risk by Harvard's Information Security and Data Privacy office prior to use in Harvard work. Contact HUIT before procuring any generative AI tool.","University-wide: AI meeting assistants (AI note takers or bots) should not be used in Harvard meetings, with the exception of approved tools with contractual protections including enterprise agreements with appropriate security and privacy protections, or tools as part of limited HUIT-directed pilot programs.","University-wide: Users are responsible for any content they publish or share that includes AI-generated material. AI-generated content may be inaccurate, misleading, entirely fabricated (hallucinations), or contain copyrighted material.","HGSE (Harvard Graduate School of Education) school-level policy: Unless otherwise specified by the instructor, using generative AI to create all or part of an assignment (e.g., paper, memo, presentation, short response) and submitting it as one's own work violates the HGSE Academic Integrity Policy. Permissible uses include seeking clarification on concepts, brainstorming ideas, or generating scenarios that help contextualize learning.","HGSE (Harvard Graduate School of Education) school-level policy: For any permitted use of generative AI tools, students must acknowledge and document that use in their assignment submission by explaining what tool(s) were used, prompts provided, and how the output was integrated into the work. Direct citations must use proper citation format.","HGSE (Harvard Graduate School of Education) school-level policy: It is forbidden to make personal recordings of any course meetings, with or without AI tool integrations. Uploading substantial course content is only allowable through the Harvard-approved AI Sandbox.","FAS (Faculty of Arts and Sciences) Office of Undergraduate Education guidance: Faculty must get documented permission from students before putting original student content into any generative AI tool. No confidential information can be loaded into generative AI systems since there is no expectation of privacy or confidentiality.","HMS (Harvard Medical School) Academic and Research Integrity guidance: AI tools cannot be listed as authors on a paper. Authors should be transparent when AI tools are used and provide information about how AI tools were used.","University-wide: Only Harvard-offered versions of generative AI tools carry stated data classification protections. Publicly-available versions of the same tools should not be used for Harvard work. Approved tools (Harvard AI Sandbox, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot Chat, ChatGPT Edu, Adobe Firefly) are approved for Level 3 data and below.","University-wide: Faculty should be clear with students about their policies on permitted uses of generative AI in classes and on academic work. Students are encouraged to ask instructors for clarification about these policies as needed."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["harvard","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","12","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","cambridge","hu","ari","hms","edu","bokcenter","huit","it","oaisc","fas","oue","provost","registrar","gse","academic","integrity","teaching","with","out","research","assistant","guidelines","syllabus","policies","generative","guidance","office","of","undergraduate","education","tool","comparison","for","faculty","on","addressing","related","issues","using","chatgpt","other","tools","at","hgse","student","use","in","work","learn","wide","level","above","confidential","data","including","non","finance","hr","medical","information","should","not","be","entered","into","publicly","available","such","may","only","that","have","been","assessed","approved","by","security","privacy","arts","sciences","all","are","required","to","inform","students","governing","class","post","their","canvas","site","vendor","currently","offered","must","risk","prior","contact","before","procuring","any","meeting","assistants","note","takers","or","bots","used","meetings","exception","contractual","protections","enterprise","agreements","appropriate","part","limited","directed","pilot","programs","users","responsible","content","they","publish","share","includes","generated","material","inaccurate","misleading","entirely","fabricated","hallucinations","contain","copyrighted","graduate","school","unless","otherwise","specified","instructor","create","an","assignment","paper","memo","presentation","short","response","submitting","one","own","violates","permissible","uses","include","seeking","clarification","concepts","brainstorming","ideas","generating","scenarios","help","contextualize","learning","permitted","acknowledge","document","submission","explaining","what","were","prompts","provided","how","output","was","integrated","direct","citations","proper","citation","format","forbidden","make","personal","recordings","course","without","integrations","uploading","substantial","allowable","through","sandbox","get","documented","permission","putting","no","can","loaded","systems","since","there","expectation","confidentiality","cannot","authors","transparent","when","provide","about","versions","carry","stated","classification","same","google","gemini","microsoft","copilot","chat","adobe","firefly","below","clear","classes","encouraged","ask","instructors","these","needed","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"imperial-college-london","entityName":"Imperial College London","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/imperial-college-london","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/imperial-college-london.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T01:00:08Z","claimCount":10,"sourceCount":14,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"London","aliases":["Imperial College London","QS 2026 2","ICL","ac.uk","imperial.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"Imperial College London is listed as QS 2026 rank 2. Imperial College London has 10 source-backed AI policy claim records from 14 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure v1.3","CfAE guidance on GenAI","dAIsy - gen AI platform","dAIsy Use Guidance and Process Flows","dAIsy Use Policy","DPA Code of Practice 08 - Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)","Generative AI & Education Guidance Hub","Generative AI and Study Guidance Hub","Generative AI guidance","Generative AI Principles","ICT Code of Practice 06 - Conditions of Use of IT Resources","Microsoft Copilot","Plagiarism, Academic Integrity & Exam Offences","Use of generative AI for teaching, learning and assessment"],"claimSummaries":["Unless explicitly authorised, using generative AI to create assessed work may be treated as an academic offence such as contract cheating under Imperial's Plagiarism, Academic Integrity & Exam Offences regulations. Improper use of AI can be investigated under the University's Academic Misconduct procedures.","Individual departments at Imperial may allow or prohibit the use of generative AI for specific assessments. Local (team/department/faculty) instructions take precedence over university-wide guidance. Students should check their department's current policy on using and disclosing generative AI in academic work and follow their module leader's instructions.","Imperial's dAIsy AI platform uses University SSO authentication with auditing. Prompts and metadata are logged for operational monitoring, and AI model providers are configured not to train on user data. Users' prompts and responses are not used to train external AI models. dAIsy is approved for use with unrestricted data within Imperial's secure infrastructure.","Breaches of Imperial's dAIsy Use Policy may lead to action under Academic Misconduct procedures for students and HR/disciplinary processes for staff, as well as under Information Security and Data Protection policies. Sanctions may include removal of access, grade penalties, or formal disciplinary measures.","Students should include a statement acknowledging their use of generative AI tools for all assessed work, specifying the tool name and version, publisher, URL, a brief description of how it was used, and confirmation that the work is their own. Further requirements such as prompts used, date of output, the output obtained, and how it was modified may also be required by individual departments.","Research at Imperial that involves people, personal data, or sensitive topics may require ethics approval, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), and data-governance controls before using any AI tool. Researchers must verify whether their use of AI in research requires special approval, particularly when uploading private or confidential research data.","All Imperial staff and students have access to Microsoft Copilot with Commercial Data Protection when signed in using their Imperial credentials. Microsoft Copilot has no access to organizational data in the Microsoft 365 Graph. Chat results are not saved or made available to Microsoft, and data does not pass outside the organisation.","Users of Imperial's dAIsy AI platform must always apply critical judgment to AI outputs. Generative AI can produce inaccurate or biased outputs ('hallucinate'), omit context, or reflect training-data biases. Users remain accountable for the accuracy, legality, and appropriateness of any content they submit or share through the platform.","Users of Imperial's dAIsy platform must not upload third-party content they are not permitted to share. Reuse of AI outputs must comply with licensing and academic citation norms. When communicating externally, dAIsy outputs must not be presented as Imperial's position without approval.","Imperial College London has established five Generative AI Principles (aligned with Imperial Values: Respect, Collaboration, Excellence, Integrity, Innovation) to provide a foundational framework for approaches to using generative AI in teaching, learning and assessment university-wide. The principles cover promoting critical use of AI, adopting a consistent ethical approach, and building a proactive research community around AI in education."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["imperial","college","london","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","10","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","14","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","icl","ac","uk","academic","misconduct","procedure","v1","cfae","guidance","on","genai","daisy","gen","platform","use","process","flows","dpa","code","of","practice","08","artificial","intelligence","generative","education","hub","study","principles","ict","06","conditions","it","resources","microsoft","copilot","plagiarism","integrity","exam","offences","for","teaching","learning","assessment","unless","explicitly","authorised","using","to","create","assessed","work","may","be","treated","an","offence","such","contract","cheating","under","regulations","improper","can","investigated","university","procedures","individual","departments","at","allow","or","prohibit","specific","assessments","local","team","department","faculty","instructions","take","precedence","over","wide","students","should","check","their","current","disclosing","in","follow","module","leader","uses","sso","authentication","with","auditing","prompts","metadata","are","logged","operational","monitoring","model","providers","configured","not","train","user","data","users","responses","used","external","models","approved","unrestricted","within","secure","infrastructure","breaches","lead","action","hr","disciplinary","processes","staff","well","information","security","protection","policies","sanctions","include","removal","access","grade","penalties","formal","measures","statement","acknowledging","tools","all","specifying","tool","name","version","publisher","url","brief","description","how","was","confirmation","that","own","further","requirements","date","output","obtained","modified","also","required","by","research","involves","people","personal","sensitive","topics","require","ethics","approval","impact","dpia","governance","controls","before","any","researchers","must","verify","whether","requires","special","particularly","when","uploading","private","confidential","have","commercial","signed","credentials","no","organizational","365","graph","chat","results","saved","made","available","does","pass","outside","organisation","always","apply","critical","judgment","outputs","produce","inaccurate","biased","hallucinate","omit","context","reflect","training","biases","remain","accountable","accuracy","legality","appropriateness","content","they","submit","share","through","upload","third","party","permitted","reuse","comply","licensing","citation","norms","communicating","externally","presented","position","without","established","five","aligned","values","respect","collaboration","excellence","innovation","provide","foundational","framework","approaches","cover","promoting","adopting","consistent","ethical","approach","building","proactive","community","around","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","named","services","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"massachusetts-institute-of-technology","entityName":"Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/massachusetts-institute-of-technology","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/massachusetts-institute-of-technology.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T00:57:38.754Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":4,"country":"United States","region":"Cambridge","aliases":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)","massachusetts-institute-of-technology","QS 2026 1","MIT","ist.mit.edu","mit.edu","tll.mit.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is listed as QS 2026 rank 1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Generative AI & Your Course","Generative AI tools available at MIT","Guidance for use of Generative AI tools","Rethinking Your Problem Sets in the World of Generative AI"],"claimSummaries":["No generative AI tools, including those licensed by IS&T, are approved for use with High Risk MIT information. Additionally, MIT does not recommend using publicly available GenAI tools not subject to an Institute licensing agreement for MIT research and educational activities, even with Low Risk or Medium Risk information.","Use of generative AI tools at MIT must comply with all applicable federal and state laws and orders (including FERPA, HIPAA, Massachusetts Data Protection Standards, export control laws, and the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI), Institute policies (including 10.1 Academic and Research Misconduct, 11.0 Privacy and Disclosure of Personal Information, and 13.0 Information Policies), Information Protection guidelines, and the Institute's Written Information Security Program (WISP), plus any additional policies established by the user's department, lab, center, or institute (DLCI).","MIT advises community members to disclose the use of generative AI tools for all academic, educational, and research-related uses, and not to publish research results relying on AI-generated content without disclosing the nature of such use.","IS&T recommends that MIT community members consult with IS&T before purchasing or using generative AI tools, and recommends using tools already licensed by IS&T for the MIT community.","MIT holds users responsible for the accuracy of any information they publish, including AI-generated content. Users must be aware that AI-generated information may be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, biased, fabricated, or contain third-party intellectual property.","MIT maintains a list of approved generative AI tools licensed by IS&T for use by the MIT community. Only these tools are approved for use with low- and medium-risk information, and any tool not on the list requires contacting ai-guidance@mit.edu for assessment before use or purchase. No generative AI tools are approved for use with High Risk MIT information.","MIT prohibits the use of generative AI for purposes that may require in-depth risk assessments without prior consultation with ai-guidance@mit.edu. Such purposes include recruitment and hiring of employees, evaluating student academic performance, making investment decisions, and complaint and dispute resolution.","MIT departments, labs, centers, and institutes (DLCIs) already using a generative AI tool or service must ensure that the tool complies with all Institute policies and Information Protection guidelines, and must contact ai-guidance@mit.edu for consultation or assessment if needed."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["massachusetts","institute","of","technology","mit","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","cambridge","ist","edu","tll","generative","your","course","tools","available","at","guidance","for","use","rethinking","problem","sets","in","world","no","including","those","licensed","by","are","approved","with","high","risk","information","additionally","does","not","recommend","using","publicly","genai","subject","to","an","licensing","agreement","research","educational","activities","even","low","or","medium","must","comply","all","applicable","federal","laws","orders","ferpa","hipaa","data","protection","standards","export","control","executive","order","on","safe","secure","trustworthy","development","policies","10","academic","misconduct","11","privacy","disclosure","personal","13","guidelines","written","security","program","wisp","plus","any","additional","established","user","department","lab","center","dlci","advises","community","members","disclose","related","uses","publish","results","relying","generated","content","without","disclosing","nature","such","recommends","that","consult","before","purchasing","already","holds","users","responsible","accuracy","they","be","aware","may","inaccurate","incomplete","misleading","biased","fabricated","contain","third","party","intellectual","property","maintains","list","only","these","tool","requires","contacting","assessment","purchase","prohibits","purposes","require","depth","assessments","prior","consultation","include","recruitment","hiring","employees","evaluating","student","performance","making","investment","decisions","complaint","dispute","resolution","departments","labs","centers","institutes","dlcis","service","ensure","complies","contact","if","needed","presence","coursework","exams","entry","integrity","named","services","teaching","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"nanyang-technological-university","entityName":"Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/nanyang-technological-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/nanyang-technological-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.97,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-05T22:11:05Z","claimCount":7,"sourceCount":3,"country":"Singapore","region":"Singapore","aliases":["Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore)","nanyang-technological-university","QS 2026 12","NTUS","edu.sg","libguides.ntu.edu.sg","ntu.edu.sg"],"fields":{"summary":"Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore) is listed as QS 2026 rank 12. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore) has 7 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["NTU Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Research","Policies & Guidelines - NTU Singapore","Using AI Discovery Tools Responsibly"],"claimSummaries":["NTU states that generative AI should not be listed as an author of any paper with NTU affiliation, or as a Principal Investigator, Co-PI, or collaborator in research proposals.","NTU states that the use of generative AI beyond basic spelling and grammar checks should be acknowledged and cited in research outputs, publications, and presentations.","NTU states that not citing or acknowledging the use of generative AI could be considered plagiarism (a form of research misconduct), especially if GenAI was used to generate ideas or for literature reviews.","NTU prohibits uploading confidential, sensitive, or personal data to external generative AI platforms unless specific conditions are met: legal compliance, restricted access, no data retention, and written permission from data owners.","NTU states that misrepresenting AI-generated content as one's own work is considered academic misconduct under the 2025 NTU Academic Integrity Handbook.","NTU guidelines state that AI detector tools should be used with caution due to frequent false positives and negatives, ease of bypass, and bias against non-native English writing patterns.","NTU requires students to disclose the use of AI tools in their submissions and to always refer to their module's AI use policy for specific expectations."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["nanyang","technological","university","singapore","ntu","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","12","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","ntus","edu","sg","libguides","on","use","of","generative","artificial","intelligence","in","research","policies","guidelines","using","discovery","tools","responsibly","states","that","should","not","be","an","author","any","paper","with","affiliation","or","principal","investigator","co","pi","collaborator","proposals","beyond","basic","spelling","grammar","checks","acknowledged","cited","outputs","publications","presentations","citing","acknowledging","could","considered","plagiarism","form","misconduct","especially","if","genai","was","used","to","generate","ideas","for","literature","reviews","prohibits","uploading","confidential","sensitive","personal","data","external","platforms","unless","specific","conditions","are","met","legal","compliance","restricted","access","no","retention","written","permission","owners","misrepresenting","generated","content","one","own","work","academic","under","2025","integrity","handbook","detector","caution","due","frequent","false","positives","negatives","ease","bypass","bias","against","non","native","english","writing","patterns","requires","students","disclose","their","submissions","always","refer","module","expectations","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","approved","named","services","teaching","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"national-university-of-singapore","entityName":"National University of Singapore (NUS)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/national-university-of-singapore","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/national-university-of-singapore.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.96,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T00:32:21Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":3,"country":"Singapore","region":"Singapore","aliases":["National University of Singapore (NUS)","national-university-of-singapore","QS 2026 8","NUS","ctlt.nus.edu.sg","edu.sg","libguides.nus.edu.sg"],"fields":{"summary":"National University of Singapore (NUS) is listed as QS 2026 rank 8. National University of Singapore (NUS) has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI Guidelines - Library Essentials","Citing AI Tools (NEW!)","NUS Policy for Use of AI in Teaching and Learning"],"claimSummaries":["NUS policy states that verdicts from AI detection tools are not admissible as conclusive evidence in disciplinary processes to charge students with academic dishonesty or to penalize student work.","NUS policy states that representing AI output as one's own work without acknowledgement is plagiarism; students who submit AI-generated work without acknowledging its use can be sanctioned for academic dishonesty.","NUS states that instructors should be transparent about where and how they deploy AI in courses, including for generating content, virtual tutoring, and assessment feedback.","NUS requires prior approval from Head of Department or relevant Deanery before using AI tools to provide instruction, feedback, or marks to students, submitted via an AI Risk Assessment.","NUS policy sets the default assumption that AI tool use is permitted for unsupervised (take-home) assessments, provided use is duly acknowledged; assessments forbidding AI must be conducted in-person and instructor-supervised.","NUS policy requires that wherever NUS data is involved, only NUS-approved AI tools should be used.","NUS has an institutional Policy for Use of AI in Teaching and Learning, supplemented by AI guidelines infographics and resources for students.","NUS requires students to cite AI-generated content according to style guide conventions and to check assignment guidelines for specific AI use instructions."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["national","university","of","singapore","nus","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","ctlt","edu","sg","libguides","guidelines","library","essentials","citing","tools","new","for","use","in","teaching","learning","states","that","verdicts","detection","are","not","admissible","conclusive","disciplinary","processes","to","charge","students","with","academic","dishonesty","or","penalize","student","work","representing","output","one","own","without","acknowledgement","plagiarism","who","submit","generated","acknowledging","its","can","be","sanctioned","instructors","should","transparent","about","where","how","they","deploy","courses","including","generating","content","virtual","tutoring","assessment","feedback","requires","prior","approval","head","department","relevant","deanery","before","using","provide","instruction","marks","submitted","via","an","risk","sets","default","assumption","tool","permitted","unsupervised","take","home","assessments","provided","duly","acknowledged","forbidding","must","conducted","person","instructor","supervised","wherever","data","involved","only","approved","used","institutional","supplemented","by","infographics","resources","cite","according","style","guide","conventions","check","assignment","specific","instructions","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","integrity","named","services","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"stanford-university","entityName":"Stanford University","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/stanford-university","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/stanford-university.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T01:07:22Z","claimCount":9,"sourceCount":13,"country":"United States","region":"Stanford","aliases":["Stanford University","QS 2026 3","SU","communitystandards.stanford.edu","ctl.stanford.edu","law.stanford.edu","med.stanford.edu","provost.stanford.edu","pwr.stanford.edu","stanford.edu","tlhub.stanford.edu","ucomm.stanford.edu","uit.stanford.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"Stanford University is listed as QS 2026 rank 3. Stanford University has 9 source-backed AI policy claim records from 13 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["3.32: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy - MD Program","AI and Your Learning: A Guide for Students - CTL","AI Guidelines for Marketing and Communications","AI Meets Education at Stanford (AIMES)","AI Playground Quick Start Guide - University IT","AI Teaching Strategies - Center for Teaching and Learning","Course Policies on Generative AI Use - Teaching & Learning Hub","Generative AI Policy Guidance - Office of Community Standards (BCA)","PWR Policy on the Use of GenAI and LLMs","Report of the AI at Stanford Advisory Committee (AISAC)","Responsible AI at Stanford - University IT","University IT AI Hub","Use of Generative AI Technology - Stanford Law School"],"claimSummaries":["Stanford's BCA issued guidance on generative AI use, and the Office of Community Standards recommends that instructors give advance notice to students when using AI detection software.","For Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) MBA and MSx courses, instructors may not ban student use of AI tools for take-home coursework, including assignments and exams. Instructors may choose whether to allow AI for in-class work. For PhD and undergraduate courses, GSB follows the university-wide Generative AI Policy Guidance from the Office of Community Standards.","Stanford School of Medicine MD and MSPA programs have a formal AI policy: students may use AI for learning, clarification, and grammar/style editing unless contrary to assignment instructions. AI use for closed-book exams or assignments where internet is restricted is prohibited unless explicitly authorized by faculty. Students are responsible for all AI-generated content they submit, must disclose and cite substantial AI contributions, and violations may result in disciplinary action.","Stanford School of Medicine MD and MSPA programs strictly prohibit entering confidential research data, patient data, or protected health information (PHI) into public AI platforms. Use of patient-identifying information or PHI in public AI tools is strictly forbidden. Students must use Stanford-approved AI platforms (e.g., Stanford Healthcare Secure GPT, Stanford AI Playground) when handling sensitive data.","Stanford Law School instructors set their own AI policies; in the absence of a course-specific policy, students may use generative AI to support learning and develop or refine their own ideas, but may not use AI to generate content presented as their own work. Using AI during an exam or to draft/revise submitted work is not permitted unless disclosed in advance and explicitly authorized in writing by the instructor. Unauthorized use may result in an F grade and/or referral to Stanford's Office of Community Standards.","Stanford's Program in Writing and Rhetoric (PWR) prohibits students from using generative AI or LLMs to compose drafts or revisions for any major assignment in PWR courses, including composing or revising portions of essays or scripts, including paraphrases of LLM-generated writing. Students may not rely on generative AI summaries of sources. Violation of PWR's AI policy is treated as an Honor Code violation and results in referral to the Office of Community Standards.","Stanford's Bechtel Center for Advising (BCA) provides guidance on generative AI in the context of the Honor Code, noting that acceptable AI use depends on individual instructor and course policies.","Stanford University IT (UIT) advises users to avoid inputting Moderate or High Risk Data into third-party AI platforms or tools not covered by a Stanford Business Associates Agreement, whether using a personal or Stanford account. Users should opt out of sharing chat data with third-party AI providers when possible.","Stanford University Communications (UComm) has issued AI guidelines for marketing and communications staff requiring: human oversight of all AI-generated content (non-delegable personal responsibility), adherence to university policies, prohibition on inputting confidential or legally privileged information into generative AI tools, prohibition on using AI to promote for-profit organizations or engage in political advocacy, and prohibition on using high-risk data in prompts. Stanford AI Playground is recommended as the primary platform. These guidelines apply to all regular staff, interns, casual employees, and consultants in marketing and communications functions."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["stanford","university","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","13","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","su","communitystandards","edu","ctl","law","med","provost","pwr","tlhub","ucomm","uit","32","generative","artificial","intelligence","md","program","your","learning","guide","for","students","guidelines","marketing","communications","meets","education","at","aimes","playground","quick","start","it","teaching","strategies","center","course","policies","on","use","hub","guidance","office","of","community","standards","bca","genai","llms","report","advisory","committee","aisac","responsible","technology","school","issued","recommends","that","instructors","give","advance","notice","to","when","using","detection","software","graduate","business","gsb","mba","msx","courses","may","not","ban","student","tools","take","home","coursework","including","assignments","exams","choose","whether","allow","in","class","work","phd","undergraduate","follows","wide","medicine","mspa","programs","have","formal","clarification","grammar","style","editing","unless","contrary","assignment","instructions","closed","book","or","where","internet","restricted","prohibited","explicitly","authorized","by","faculty","are","all","generated","content","they","submit","must","disclose","cite","substantial","contributions","violations","result","disciplinary","action","strictly","prohibit","entering","confidential","research","data","patient","protected","health","information","phi","into","platforms","identifying","forbidden","approved","healthcare","secure","gpt","handling","sensitive","set","their","own","absence","specific","support","develop","refine","ideas","but","generate","presented","during","an","exam","draft","revise","submitted","permitted","disclosed","writing","instructor","unauthorized","grade","referral","rhetoric","prohibits","compose","drafts","revisions","any","major","composing","revising","portions","essays","scripts","paraphrases","llm","rely","summaries","sources","violation","treated","honor","code","results","bechtel","advising","provides","context","noting","acceptable","depends","individual","advises","users","avoid","inputting","moderate","high","risk","third","party","covered","associates","agreement","personal","account","should","opt","out","sharing","chat","with","providers","possible","staff","requiring","human","oversight","non","delegable","responsibility","adherence","prohibition","legally","privileged","promote","profit","organizations","engage","political","advocacy","prompts","recommended","primary","platform","these","apply","regular","interns","casual","employees","consultants","functions","presence","disclosure","privacy","entry","academic","integrity","named","services","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-oxford","entityName":"University of Oxford","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-oxford","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-oxford.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-06T00:57:58Z","claimCount":11,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"Oxford","aliases":["University of Oxford","QS 2026 4","UO","ac.uk","ctl.ox.ac.uk","governance.admin.ox.ac.uk","infosec.ox.ac.uk","it.ox.ac.uk","mpls.ox.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Oxford is listed as QS 2026 rank 4. University of Oxford has 11 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI and academic practice | Centre for Teaching and Learning","AI use in summative assessment","An introduction to the use of generative AI tools in teaching","Generative AI Use — Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division","The University's AI provision | IT Services","Use Generative AI services safely"],"claimSummaries":["Staff setting summative assessment must: declare whether/how students can use AI; review assessment design for alignment with permitted AI use; ensure equality of baseline AI tool provision where authorised; specify declaration forms for student AI use; only identify suspected unauthorised AI use through marking or university-endorsed detection tools (none currently endorsed); and handle misconduct under usual disciplinary regulations.","Oxford requires postgraduate research students to include a statement on their use of generative AI in their final thesis submission.","Students undertaking summative assessment must: complete assessment in line with the AI use declaration for each assignment; acknowledge their AI use via a formal declaration in the prescribed format; and understand that submitting work breaching AI specifications constitutes cheating and may constitute plagiarism, handled under usual disciplinary regulations.","The University's policy on AI use in summative assessment is based on three principles endorsed by Education Committee in Trinity term 2025: (1) educational practice must be grounded in values of integrity, honesty and transparency, which must be clearly articulated and frequently discussed; (2) every discrete unit of assessment must be carefully designed to be fit for its specific purposes, clearly articulated to students; (3) every summative assessment must be accompanied by a clear explanation of what appropriate assistance is permitted and what is forbidden, specifying how students should report assistance received.","All cloud-based generative AI tools must be subject to a security risk assessment before being used with University information. Free and open-source services generally cannot complete a full assessment and should not be used for confidential information.","ChatGPT Edu and Google Gemini, when licensed via the AI Competency Centre, have been approved for processing of Confidential University data by the Information Security team. University data processed through these licensed platforms will not be used to train AI models. Confidential data must only be used with the University's approved, SSO-protected platforms.","For PGR students, the following uses of generative AI are not permitted in summative assessments: substantive original writing by GenAI (verbatim or closely paraphrased for chapters or parts thereof) which constitutes plagiarism; using AI to produce plots or data visualisations directly from prompts; and entering private or confidential data into third-party AI tools.","External custom GPTs should not be used to process confidential University data or sensitive personal data. No non-public University data (including confidential, internal, or personal data) may be incorporated in any custom GPT shared with external users.","Unapproved AI transcription bots should not be used in Teams meetings. The inbuilt Teams Transcription facility or Microsoft Copilot may be used subject to appropriate data protection considerations. Other AI transcription bot services should be avoided, and meeting organisers should set options to prevent participants from adding unapproved transcription bots.","For PGR summative assessment (transfer, confirmation, thesis), the following AI uses are permitted without declaration: local editing tools (grammar assistants, spell-checkers, code debuggers making small local changes); AI for background research, language translation, bibliography creation, and general subject understanding; and AI for coding where coding serves a research purpose but is not the substantive output. Students remain responsible for correctness of any code used.","Unauthorised use of generative AI falls under the University's plagiarism regulations and is subject to academic penalties in summative assessments. Students must learn and practise academic skills of note-taking and clear attribution to differentiate their own work from AI-derived material. Where AI use is authorised, students should give clear acknowledgment of how it has been used."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","oxford","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","11","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","uo","ac","uk","ctl","ox","governance","admin","infosec","it","mpls","academic","practice","centre","for","teaching","learning","use","in","summative","assessment","an","introduction","to","generative","tools","mathematical","physical","life","sciences","division","provision","services","safely","staff","setting","must","declare","whether","how","students","can","design","alignment","with","permitted","ensure","equality","baseline","tool","where","authorised","specify","declaration","forms","student","only","identify","suspected","unauthorised","through","marking","or","endorsed","detection","none","currently","handle","misconduct","under","usual","disciplinary","regulations","requires","postgraduate","research","include","statement","on","their","final","thesis","submission","undertaking","complete","line","each","assignment","acknowledge","via","formal","prescribed","format","understand","that","submitting","work","breaching","specifications","constitutes","cheating","may","constitute","plagiarism","handled","based","three","principles","by","education","committee","trinity","term","2025","educational","be","grounded","values","integrity","honesty","transparency","which","clearly","articulated","frequently","discussed","every","discrete","unit","carefully","designed","fit","its","specific","purposes","accompanied","clear","explanation","what","appropriate","assistance","forbidden","specifying","should","report","received","all","cloud","subject","security","risk","before","being","used","information","free","open","generally","cannot","full","not","confidential","chatgpt","edu","google","gemini","when","licensed","competency","have","been","approved","processing","data","team","processed","these","platforms","will","train","models","sso","protected","pgr","following","uses","are","assessments","substantive","writing","genai","verbatim","closely","paraphrased","chapters","parts","thereof","using","produce","plots","visualisations","directly","prompts","entering","private","into","third","party","external","custom","gpts","process","sensitive","personal","no","non","including","internal","incorporated","any","gpt","shared","users","unapproved","transcription","bots","teams","meetings","inbuilt","facility","microsoft","copilot","protection","considerations","other","bot","avoided","meeting","organisers","set","options","prevent","participants","adding","transfer","confirmation","without","local","editing","grammar","assistants","spell","checkers","code","debuggers","making","small","changes","background","translation","bibliography","creation","general","understanding","coding","serves","purpose","but","output","remain","responsible","correctness","falls","penalties","learn","practise","skills","note","taking","attribution","differentiate","own","derived","material","give","acknowledgment","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","named","guidance","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"california-institute-of-technology","entityName":"California Institute of Technology (Caltech)","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/california-institute-of-technology","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/california-institute-of-technology.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-05T23:23:38Z","claimCount":9,"sourceCount":2,"country":"United States","region":"Pasadena","aliases":["California Institute of Technology (Caltech)","california-institute-of-technology","QS 2026 10","Caltech","CIT","admissions.caltech.edu","caltech.edu","hss.caltech.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"California Institute of Technology (Caltech) is listed as QS 2026 rank 10. California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has 9 source-backed AI policy claim records from 2 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["HSS Policy on Generative AI","Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions AI Policy: Guidelines for Fall Applicants"],"claimSummaries":["Caltech admissions requires all Fall 2026 applicants to review its admissions guidelines on the ethical use of AI before submitting supplemental essays. Failure to comply may result in rescission of admission.","Caltech admissions prohibits applicants from copying and pasting directly from an AI generator, relying on AI-generated content to outline or draft essays, replacing their unique voice with AI-generated content, or translating essays via AI.","Caltech admissions permits applicants to use AI tools like Grammarly or Microsoft Editor for grammar and spelling review of completed essays, to generate brainstorming questions or exercises, and to research the college application process.","In Caltech's Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) division, students may use generative AI tools only in ways explicitly allowed by the course instructor in the course materials. Any usage not specifically allowed should be assumed to be disallowed.","The Caltech HSS generative AI policy applies to all assignments including major papers, exams, discussion board posts, reflections, and problem sets.","Caltech admissions AI guidelines were approved by the Undergraduate Faculty Admissions and Graduate Studies committees for the Fall 2026 application cycle, and may evolve for future cycles.","Caltech HSS students are expected to follow specific course guidance for documenting any permitted use of generative AI tools.","At Caltech, AI use policies for student coursework are determined by individual departments and/or individual faculty, not by a university-wide policy.","The Caltech HSS generative AI policy states that generative AI may promote learning in some contexts and impede it in others, and instructors prioritize student learning in setting these policies."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["california","institute","of","technology","caltech","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","10","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","pasadena","cit","admissions","edu","hss","on","generative","undergraduate","graduate","guidelines","for","fall","applicants","requires","all","to","its","ethical","use","before","submitting","supplemental","essays","failure","comply","may","result","in","rescission","admission","prohibits","copying","pasting","directly","an","generator","relying","generated","content","outline","or","draft","replacing","their","unique","voice","with","translating","via","permits","tools","like","grammarly","microsoft","editor","grammar","spelling","completed","generate","brainstorming","questions","exercises","research","college","application","process","humanities","social","sciences","division","students","only","ways","explicitly","allowed","by","course","instructor","materials","any","usage","not","specifically","should","be","assumed","disallowed","applies","assignments","including","major","papers","exams","discussion","board","posts","reflections","problem","sets","were","approved","faculty","studies","committees","cycle","evolve","future","cycles","are","expected","follow","specific","guidance","documenting","permitted","at","policies","student","coursework","determined","individual","departments","university","wide","that","promote","learning","some","contexts","impede","it","others","instructors","prioritize","setting","these","presence","disclosure","privacy","data","entry","academic","integrity","named","services","teaching","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-chicago","entityName":"University of Chicago","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-chicago","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-chicago.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-05T23:24:33Z","claimCount":14,"sourceCount":4,"country":"United States","region":"Chicago","aliases":["University of Chicago","QS 2026 13","UC","genai.uchicago.edu","uchicago.edu"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Chicago is listed as QS 2026 rank 13. University of Chicago has 14 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Approved, Restricted or Unauthorized Tools","Generative AI at UChicago","Generative AI Guidance","Relevant Policies for the Use of AI Tools"],"claimSummaries":["The University of Chicago maintains a page listing approved, restricted, and unauthorized AI tools, with use conditions and review information for the university community.","At the University of Chicago, use of confidential data with publicly available generative AI tools is prohibited without prior security and privacy review. This includes personally identifiable employee data, FERPA-covered student data, HIPAA-covered patient data, and research that is not yet publicly available.","At the University of Chicago, generative AI systems, applications, and software products that process, analyze, or move confidential data require a security review before they are acquired, even if the software is free.","At the University of Chicago, use of University data by vendors to train or improve their AI models is not permitted.","At the University of Chicago, confidential, sensitive, or restricted data should not be used with generative AI tools unless the tool and the use have been reviewed and approved through the appropriate University process.","At the University of Chicago, even when an AI tool is listed as approved, it is not risk-free. Approval means the tool can be used under specific conditions, but users are still responsible for evaluating the sensitivity of their data and ensuring confidential, regulated, or contract-restricted information is not shared unless explicitly allowed.","At the University of Chicago, PhoenixAI is the university's internal generative AI platform, approved for general use and can be used for sensitive information with IRB approval.","At the University of Chicago, ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 are approved only for data that is made publicly available by its source, with restrictions limiting use to non-sensitive information.","At the University of Chicago, AI-generated content may be misleading or inaccurate, and it is the responsibility of the tool user to review the accuracy and ownership of any AI-generated content.","At the University of Chicago, if a proposed AI tool use exceeds standard risk tolerance but is not prohibited by compliance regulations, a Risk Acceptance Letter may be prepared to document reviewed and accepted risks under specific conditions.","The University of Chicago provides a central hub at genai.uchicago.edu for information on generative AI tools, training, resources, and guidance for the university community.","At the University of Chicago, AI transcription or assistant tools may not be used to secretly record or join meetings, per the Business Conduct Policy.","At the University of Chicago, AI tools may not be used to generate harassing, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful content, including the use of AI to create or alter images, audio, and videos, per the Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, and Sexual Misconduct.","At the University of Chicago, entering sensitive data into AI tools without review and approval by security, privacy, and the appropriate data steward may create an unauthorized data disclosure that may violate University policy, federal and state law, sponsor or contract obligations, and data use agreements."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","chicago","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","13","has","14","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","states","uc","genai","uchicago","edu","approved","restricted","or","unauthorized","tools","generative","at","guidance","relevant","policies","for","use","maintains","page","listing","with","conditions","information","community","confidential","data","publicly","available","prohibited","without","prior","security","privacy","this","includes","personally","identifiable","employee","ferpa","covered","student","hipaa","patient","research","that","not","yet","systems","applications","software","products","process","analyze","move","require","before","they","are","acquired","even","if","free","by","vendors","to","train","improve","their","models","permitted","sensitive","should","be","used","unless","tool","have","been","reviewed","through","appropriate","when","an","it","risk","approval","means","can","under","specific","but","users","still","responsible","evaluating","sensitivity","ensuring","regulated","contract","shared","explicitly","allowed","phoenixai","internal","platform","general","irb","chatgpt","only","made","its","restrictions","limiting","non","generated","content","may","misleading","inaccurate","responsibility","user","accuracy","ownership","any","proposed","exceeds","standard","tolerance","compliance","regulations","acceptance","letter","prepared","document","accepted","risks","provides","central","hub","on","training","resources","transcription","assistant","secretly","join","meetings","per","business","conduct","generate","harassing","discriminatory","otherwise","unlawful","including","create","alter","images","audio","videos","harassment","discrimination","sexual","misconduct","entering","into","steward","disclosure","violate","federal","law","sponsor","obligations","agreements","presence","coursework","exams","entry","academic","integrity","named","services","teaching","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-hong-kong","entityName":"The University of Hong Kong","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-hong-kong","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-hong-kong.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.97,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-05T22:11:05Z","claimCount":6,"sourceCount":3,"country":"Hong Kong SAR","region":"Hong Kong","aliases":["The University of Hong Kong","university-of-hong-kong","QS 2026 11","UHK","hku.hk","researchintegrity.law.hku.hk","rss.hku.hk"],"fields":{"summary":"The University of Hong Kong is listed as QS 2026 rank 11. The University of Hong Kong has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 3 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Guidelines on the Responsible Use of Generative AI in Research at HKU","Research Services - Research Integrity","Responsible Use of Generative AI in Research at HKU"],"claimSummaries":["HKU's Guidelines on the Responsible Use of Generative AI in Research were formally approved by the Senate on September 23, 2025 and are now in effect.","HKU states that researchers should clearly disclose generative AI tool usage in research outputs, publications, and presentations, including the type of GenAI used, data sources, and potential limitations.","HKU states that input data used with generative AI should comply with data protection laws and university policies, and that users should avoid sharing sensitive, confidential, or proprietary information with GenAI platforms.","HKU holds researchers responsible for the outputs generated by generative AI and their implications; GenAI should be used as a support tool, not a substitute for critical analysis and human expertise.","HKU states that researchers should ensure generative AI use does not infringe existing intellectual property rights or compromise research output ownership.","HKU's GenAI research guidelines are positioned as an institutional policy under the Research Integrity framework, approved by Senate in September 2025."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","hong","kong","the","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","11","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","sar","uhk","hku","hk","researchintegrity","law","rss","guidelines","on","responsible","use","generative","in","research","at","services","integrity","were","formally","approved","by","senate","september","23","2025","are","now","effect","states","that","researchers","should","clearly","disclose","tool","usage","outputs","publications","presentations","including","type","genai","used","data","sources","potential","limitations","input","with","comply","protection","laws","policies","users","avoid","sharing","sensitive","confidential","or","proprietary","information","platforms","holds","for","generated","their","implications","be","support","not","substitute","critical","analysis","human","expertise","ensure","does","infringe","existing","intellectual","property","rights","compromise","output","ownership","positioned","an","institutional","under","framework","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","academic","tools","named","teaching","guidance","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"eth-zurich","entityName":"ETH Zurich","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/eth-zurich","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/eth-zurich.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-05T17:43:30Z","claimCount":8,"sourceCount":5,"country":"Switzerland","region":"Zürich","aliases":["ETH Zurich","QS 2026 7","EZ","aiethicspolicy.ethz.ch","ethz.ch"],"fields":{"summary":"ETH Zurich is listed as QS 2026 rank 7. ETH Zurich has 8 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["Academic Integrity | ETH Zurich","AI in Teaching and Learning — ETH Zurich","AI Tools & Licenses | ETH Zurich","ETH AI Ethics Policy Network","Generative AI in Teaching and Learning — Guidelines (ETH Zurich)"],"claimSummaries":["ETH Zurich advocates a proactive approach to the use of generative AI in educational contexts, emphasising responsible use among students and lecturers.","Students are responsible for the content of work they submit. Performance assessments must be conducted independently and personally; GenAI may serve a supplementary role but not replace student efforts.","Lecturers determine whether and how GenAI may be used in their courses and for respective assessments. Teaching materials created with GenAI must be subjected to quality control by the lecturer.","Violations of GenAI guidelines such as use of unauthorised aids or non-disclosure of their use are subject to disciplinary action under existing performance assessment rules and the declaration of originality.","ETH Zurich recommends Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and NotebookLM for teaching purposes, as they offer data-protected access via ETH accounts where personal data is not used for training models.","Students must refrain from disclosing copyrighted, private, or confidential information to commercial GenAI clients unless expressly permitted, and must respect privacy and copyright of content they work with.","ETH Zurich requires transparency about GenAI use: students must declare which tools they used and for which parts of their work; lecturers must communicate when GenAI use is permitted and make their own GenAI use visible.","ETH Zurich states that technical recognition of AI-generated output is currently unreliable and will probably remain so; trust in such methods is not appropriate."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["eth","zurich","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","switzerland","ez","aiethicspolicy","ethz","ch","academic","integrity","in","teaching","learning","tools","licenses","ethics","network","generative","guidelines","advocates","proactive","approach","to","use","of","educational","contexts","emphasising","responsible","among","students","lecturers","are","for","content","work","they","submit","performance","assessments","must","be","conducted","independently","personally","genai","may","serve","supplementary","role","but","not","replace","student","efforts","determine","whether","how","used","their","courses","respective","materials","created","with","subjected","quality","control","by","lecturer","violations","such","unauthorised","aids","or","non","disclosure","subject","disciplinary","action","under","existing","assessment","rules","declaration","originality","recommends","microsoft","copilot","google","gemini","notebooklm","purposes","offer","data","protected","access","via","accounts","where","personal","training","models","refrain","disclosing","copyrighted","private","confidential","information","commercial","clients","unless","expressly","permitted","respect","privacy","copyright","requires","transparency","about","declare","which","parts","communicate","when","make","own","visible","states","that","technical","recognition","generated","output","currently","unreliable","will","probably","remain","so","trust","methods","appropriate","presence","coursework","exams","entry","approved","named","services","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"ucl","entityName":"UCL","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/ucl","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/ucl.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.95,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-05T17:43:30Z","claimCount":5,"sourceCount":2,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"London","aliases":["UCL","QS 2026 9","ac.uk","ucl.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"UCL is listed as QS 2026 rank 9. UCL has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 2 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["GenAI and academic integrity in assessment | Teaching & Learning — UCL","Generative AI Hub | Teaching & Learning — UCL"],"claimSummaries":["UCL uses a 3-category assessment framework for GenAI: Category 1 requires own work only; Category 2 permits GenAI with acknowledgement; Category 3 includes essential GenAI use as part of the assessment.","UCL designates Microsoft Copilot as its approved GenAI tool due to its enhanced data protection, positioning it as a more secure alternative to other GenAI services.","UCL defines academic misconduct in the context of GenAI as gaining an unfair advantage over other students; there is no single list of fair and unfair uses as it depends on the assessment category.","UCL provides Studiosity, a GenAI-powered service available 24/7 to all current students at all levels of study, to support academic writing and referencing skills.","UCL permits using GenAI to help with spelling, grammar, and language tone in assessments, but it must not change the content and meaning of what the student has written."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["ucl","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","london","ac","uk","genai","academic","integrity","in","assessment","teaching","learning","generative","hub","uses","category","framework","for","requires","own","work","only","permits","with","acknowledgement","includes","essential","use","part","of","designates","microsoft","copilot","its","approved","tool","due","to","enhanced","data","protection","positioning","it","more","secure","alternative","other","services","defines","misconduct","context","gaining","an","unfair","advantage","over","students","there","no","single","list","fair","depends","on","provides","studiosity","powered","service","available","24","all","current","at","levels","study","support","writing","referencing","skills","using","help","spelling","grammar","tone","assessments","but","must","not","change","content","meaning","what","student","written","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","privacy","entry","tools","named","guidance","research","security","procurement"]},{"entityType":"university","entitySlug":"university-of-cambridge","entityName":"University of Cambridge","canonicalUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-cambridge","publicJsonUrl":"https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-cambridge.json","reviewState":"agent_reviewed","confidence":0.98,"lastCheckedAt":"2026-05-05T16:20:56.177Z","claimCount":12,"sourceCount":6,"country":"United Kingdom","region":"Cambridge","aliases":["University of Cambridge","QS 2026 6","UC","ac.uk","blendedlearning.cam.ac.uk","educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk","information-compliance.admin.cam.ac.uk"],"fields":{"summary":"University of Cambridge is listed as QS 2026 rank 6. University of Cambridge has 12 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.","sourceTitles":["AI guidance – Guidance for University of Cambridge Staff on the Administrative Use of Generative AI","AI Policy Framework","Generative AI and Assessment","Generative AI and Education","Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct","Using Generative AI"],"claimSummaries":["A student using any unacknowledged content generated by artificial intelligence within a summative assessment as though it is their own work constitutes academic misconduct, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the assessment brief.","Staff must avoid inputting confidential, sensitive or personal information into GenAI tools unless warranted and only in accordance with guidance. Inputting data into a free or unlicensed GenAI tool could be considered equivalent to putting it into the public domain, signifying a potential personal data breach.","The University's standard licensed GenAI tools are Microsoft 365 Copilot, Google Gemini, and Google NotebookLM. Use of other licensed GenAI tools is not prohibited but must be procured in accordance with applicable procurement policy, including completion of risk assessments such as DPIAs and/or ISRAs. The public, free versions of Copilot, Gemini and NotebookLM must not be used for University activities.","All GenAI outputs must be thoroughly evaluated by a human being before they are used. Use of GenAI must be acknowledged if it makes a significant and unrevised contribution to a substantive or impactful piece of work. Staff are responsible for ensuring any use of GenAI is conducted reasonably, lawfully and in conjunction with relevant University policies.","Staff should not rely on AI detection software as it is not proven to be accurate or reliable and provides no evidence to support investigations into the use of GenAI.","The University of Cambridge broadly permits the appropriate use of GenAI tools and related software. Students are permitted to make appropriate use of GenAI tools to support their personal study, research and formative work. Staff are permitted to make appropriate use of GenAI tools to support their own work.","Data input into the University's licensed versions of Copilot, Gemini and NotebookLM is not used to train those tools. Inputting data into free or unlicensed GenAI tools could result in data being used for training, which may not be a lawful use of personal data.","Cambridge provides an AI Policy Framework for triposes, departments, faculties, and colleges to determine their own local allowance for the use of AI, rather than a single university-wide AI policy. The framework is adapted from a policy proposal by Dr Claire Benn and Dr John Burden from the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence.","The University's Information Security Risk Assessment (ISRA) and Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) processes remain the relevant risk assessment processes for GenAI use. The Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) continues to apply, including compliance monitoring and enforcement provisions, when using GenAI tools.","When using GenAI tools, users should: remain aware of privacy and data implications and not share anything personal or sensitive; understand ethical implications as tools often have limited attribution; acknowledge use of GenAI if it makes a significant contribution to substantive work; and take responsibility for ensuring use is conducted reasonably, lawfully, and in conjunction with relevant University policies.","Examiners are not permitted to upload, copy, or share student work with Generative AI tools and Large Language Models. Examiners may not use tools such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google Bard, or Microsoft Copilot to analyse student work or provide written feedback. Examiners may use these tools to support their own writing in documenting feedback (e.g. consolidating personal notes and rephrasing comments).","Staff must consider the purpose for which data was collected before inputting it into GenAI tools. Data must be collected, held and used for only that purpose. It is not appropriate to use personal data collected for a different purpose with a GenAI tool. Automated decision-making involving GenAI requires human involvement in the decision-making process."],"analysisDimensions":["Policy presence","AI disclosure","Coursework","Exams","Privacy and data entry","Academic integrity","Approved tools","Named AI services","Teaching guidance","Research guidance","Security and procurement"]},"searchTokens":["university","of","cambridge","is","listed","as","qs","2026","rank","has","12","source","backed","ai","policy","claim","records","from","official","attributions","the","public","record","preserves","original","language","evidence","snippets","urls","snapshot","hashes","confidence","and","review","state","united","kingdom","uc","ac","uk","blendedlearning","cam","educationalpolicy","admin","information","compliance","guidance","for","staff","on","administrative","use","generative","framework","assessment","education","plagiarism","academic","misconduct","using","student","any","unacknowledged","content","generated","by","artificial","intelligence","within","summative","though","it","their","own","work","constitutes","unless","explicitly","stated","otherwise","in","brief","must","avoid","inputting","confidential","sensitive","or","personal","into","genai","tools","warranted","only","accordance","with","data","free","unlicensed","tool","could","be","considered","equivalent","to","putting","domain","signifying","potential","breach","standard","licensed","are","microsoft","365","copilot","google","gemini","notebooklm","other","not","prohibited","but","procured","applicable","procurement","including","completion","risk","assessments","such","dpias","isras","versions","used","activities","all","outputs","thoroughly","evaluated","human","being","before","they","acknowledged","if","makes","significant","unrevised","contribution","substantive","impactful","piece","responsible","ensuring","conducted","reasonably","lawfully","conjunction","relevant","policies","should","rely","detection","software","proven","accurate","reliable","provides","no","support","investigations","broadly","permits","appropriate","related","students","permitted","make","study","research","formative","input","train","those","result","training","which","may","lawful","an","triposes","departments","faculties","colleges","determine","local","allowance","rather","than","single","wide","adapted","proposal","dr","claire","benn","john","burden","leverhulme","centre","future","security","isra","protection","impact","dpia","processes","remain","acceptable","aup","continues","apply","monitoring","enforcement","provisions","when","users","aware","privacy","implications","share","anything","understand","ethical","often","have","limited","attribution","acknowledge","take","responsibility","examiners","upload","copy","large","models","chatgpt","perplexity","bard","analyse","provide","written","feedback","these","writing","documenting","consolidating","notes","rephrasing","comments","consider","purpose","was","collected","held","that","different","automated","decision","making","involving","requires","involvement","process","presence","disclosure","coursework","exams","entry","integrity","approved","named","services","teaching"]}]}}