University AI Policy Tracker

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

APIGitHub

Change log

Palacký University Olomouc

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

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 18, 2026Last changedMay 18, 2026Claims4Sources2
University pagePublic JSON

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

Palacký University Olomouc currently has 4 source-backed claim records and 2 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 18, 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.

Palacký University Olomouc current policy evidence

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

+8-0
11 # Palacký University Olomouc AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: UP's recommendations state that generative AI use in professional texts and other creative work must be declared, and that staff and students may not claim authorship of texts or other creative outputs generated using AI.
3+Evidence (en, cd03a1e366b5): The use of generative AI in professional texts and other creative work, including artistic output, must be declared. Neither staff nor students may claim to be the authors of texts and other creative outputs generated using AI.
4+privacy: UP's recommendations warn that personal data, sensitive information, and potential UP intellectual property entered into AI systems must be handled responsibly because such data is usually made available to a third party and control over it may be lost.
5+Evidence (en, cd03a1e366b5): When using AI, personal data and other sensitive information (such as potential UP intellectual property) that is fed into AI systems must be handled responsibly. It should be understood that such data is usually made available to a third party and that the owner then loses control over it.
6+ai_tool_treatment: UP's generative AI recommendations state that AI systems at Palacky University Olomouc must be used in compliance with UP ethical principles and as tools to improve knowledge, skills, teaching, research, management, administration, or editing rather than as a full replacement for creative activity.
7+Evidence (en, cd03a1e366b5): All AI systems (generative or otherwise) at UP must be used in such a way as to comply with the ethical principles of UP as defined by the Code of Ethics for UP staff and students
8+teaching: UP's recommendations say that if an educator uses AI in any form of assessment of student activities, such as evaluating written work, the assessment should include the educator's own assessment and not be made solely by AI.
9+Evidence (en, cd03a1e366b5): if an educator decides to use AI in any form of assessment of students' activities (e.g. evaluation of their written works), it should always include the educator's own assessment, not one made solely by AI.

Claim changes

4 claim records

academic_integrity

UP's recommendations state that generative AI use in professional texts and other creative work must be declared, and that staff and students may not claim authorship of texts or other creative outputs generated using AI.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence91%Evidence1Languagesen

privacy

UP's recommendations warn that personal data, sensitive information, and potential UP intellectual property entered into AI systems must be handled responsibly because such data is usually made available to a third party and control over it may be lost.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen

ai_tool_treatment

UP's generative AI recommendations state that AI systems at Palacky University Olomouc must be used in compliance with UP ethical principles and as tools to improve knowledge, skills, teaching, research, management, administration, or editing rather than as a full replacement for creative activity.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence89%Evidence1Languagesen

teaching

UP's recommendations say that if an educator uses AI in any form of assessment of student activities, such as evaluating written work, the assessment should include the educator's own assessment and not be made solely by AI.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence88%Evidence1Languagesen

Source snapshots

2 source attributions