University AI Policy Tracker

Open, evidence-backed AI policy records for public reuse.

APIGitHub

Change log

Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Source-check timeline, source snapshot hashes, claim review state, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed claim evidence.

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 19, 2026Last changedMay 19, 2026Claims6Sources4
University pagePublic JSON

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

Norwegian University of Life Sciences currently has 6 source-backed claim records and 4 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 19, 2026.

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.

Claim/evidence diff preview

Diff-style preview built from current public claim/evidence records. Full old/new source diffs require paired historical snapshots.

Norwegian University of Life Sciences current policy evidence

Inserted lines represent current public claim and evidence records in the source-backed dataset.

+12-0
11 # Norwegian University of Life Sciences AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: NMBU's generative AI guidelines require students to clearly indicate how and where AI-based programs have been used, and to account for AI use in assignments or other work submitted for assessment or compulsory activity.
3+Evidence (en, 53fa156a3c82): The student must follow academic norms of honesty, diligence, and openness, and clearly indicate how and where AI-based programs have been used. If the student uses AI-based programs in a submitted assignment or in other work to be submitted for assessment or as a compulsory activity in a course, the student must account for the use.
4+ai_tool_treatment: NMBU's generative AI guidelines state that AI-based programs are permitted in accordance with the guidelines, while individual course descriptions may state that AI-based programs are not permitted for exams or other assessed work.
5+Evidence (en, 53fa156a3c82): At NMBU, the use of AI-based programs is permitted in accordance with these guidelines. In the online course description for each individual course, it may be stated that AI-based programs are not permitted for use in exams or in other work submitted for assessment in the course.
6+ai_tool_treatment: NMBU's generative AI guidelines state that AI-based programs will normally not be permitted in written examinations on campus; for take-home exams, students must follow the AI-use specifications in the exam paper and course description.
7+Evidence (en, 53fa156a3c82): In written examinations on campus, the use of AI-based programs will normally not be permitted. In take-home exams, of shorter or longer duration, the student must comply with specifications regarding the use of AI given in the individual exam paper and in the course description.
8+ai_tool_treatment: NMBU student guidance says each course description should state permitted AI use for assessment and compulsory activities, using three categories: K1 no AI use, K2 specified AI use, and K3 full AI use aligned with NMBU AI guidelines.
9+Evidence (nb, 4556959d8fbc): I emnebeskrivelsen skal det stå informasjon om tillatt bruk av KI i emnet. Dette feltet skal inneholde en beskrivelse av hvordan KI er tillatt brukt ved de forskjellige vurderingsformene og de obligatoriske aktivitetene som emnet har. Det er 3 mulige kategorier av KI-bruk.
10+privacy: NMBU's Norwegian student guidance tells students not to use AI to process personal data or sensitive matters.
11+Evidence (nb, 4556959d8fbc): Det er viktig å: bruke KI som støtte, ikke som erstatning for egen tenkning; kritisk vurdere kvaliteten på svarene du får; alltid oppgi bruk av KI i akademiske arbeider og merk tydelig materiale generert av språkmodeller; ikke bruke KI til å behandle personopplysninger eller sensitive saker.
12+academic_integrity: NMBU's Norwegian cheating and plagiarism page warns that incorrect or improper use of AI tools such as ChatGPT can create suspicion of attempted cheating and/or plagiarism, with possible consequences including annulment and exclusion.
13+Evidence (nb, 2d4d3862a0ca): Husk at feil bruk av kunstig intelligens (KI)/artificial intelligence (AI) som eks. ChatGPT eller andre kan medføre mistanke om forsøk på fusk og/eller plagiering. Dette kan få alvorlige konsekvenser for deg.

Claim changes

6 claim records

academic_integrity

NMBU's Norwegian cheating and plagiarism page warns that incorrect or improper use of AI tools such as ChatGPT can create suspicion of attempted cheating and/or plagiarism, with possible consequences including annulment and exclusion.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence89%Evidence1Languagesnb

privacy

NMBU's Norwegian student guidance tells students not to use AI to process personal data or sensitive matters.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesnb

ai_tool_treatment

NMBU student guidance says each course description should state permitted AI use for assessment and compulsory activities, using three categories: K1 no AI use, K2 specified AI use, and K3 full AI use aligned with NMBU AI guidelines.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%Evidence1Languagesnb

ai_tool_treatment

NMBU's generative AI guidelines state that AI-based programs will normally not be permitted in written examinations on campus; for take-home exams, students must follow the AI-use specifications in the exam paper and course description.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%Evidence1Languagesen

academic_integrity

NMBU's generative AI guidelines require students to clearly indicate how and where AI-based programs have been used, and to account for AI use in assignments or other work submitted for assessment or compulsory activity.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence96%Evidence1Languagesen

ai_tool_treatment

NMBU's generative AI guidelines state that AI-based programs are permitted in accordance with the guidelines, while individual course descriptions may state that AI-based programs are not permitted for exams or other assessed work.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesen

Source snapshots

4 source attributions