University AI Policy Tracker

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

API docsGitHub repo

Change log

University of Copenhagen

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

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 14, 2026Last changedMay 14, 2026Claims5Sources4
University pagePublic JSON

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

University of Copenhagen currently has 5 source-backed claim records and 4 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 14, 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.

University of Copenhagen current policy evidence

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

+10-0
11 # University of Copenhagen AI policy record
2+research: University of Copenhagen PhD guidance says AI-assisted technologies used in a thesis must be clearly disclosed and described, cannot be listed as an author, and leave the PhD student responsible for accuracy, integrity, and originality.
3+Evidence (en, 30c3a8ee5327): if you use AI-assisted technologies in your thesis it must be clearly disclosed, and the use must be described. The AI-assisted technology cannot be listed as an author. You are therefore solely responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work.
4+research: University of Copenhagen authorship guidelines say AI-assisted technologies used in scholarly work must be clearly stated and declared; chatbots cannot be listed as co-authors, and researchers using AI-assisted technologies must be able to account for the results.
5+Evidence (en, 2fbd9f81a9cb): If AI-assisted technologies such as large language models, chatbots or image creating programs have been used in the scholarly work, this must be clearly stated and declared in the publication. Chatbots and the like cannot be listed as co-authors of scholarly work; researchers who use AI-assisted technologies in their work must be able to account for the results.
6+privacy: University of Copenhagen employee guidance says employees may not enter personal data or confidential or copyrighted information into generative AI tools and should use only the licensed Copilot Enterprise tool for UCPH work.
7+Evidence (en, 78f1eb1ac066): As an employee at UCPH, you can now read the first guidelines on how you are allowed to use generative AI tools in your work at the University. You may not enter personal data. You may not enter confidential or copyrighted information. Only use Copilot Enterprise for which UCPH has bought a license.
8+ai_tool_treatment: University of Copenhagen guidance says the Copilot Enterprise-only guideline means employees must avoid using ChatGPT or other non-licensed generative AI in their work for UCPH.
9+Evidence (en, 78f1eb1ac066): The guideline to only use Copilot Enterprise means that, as an employee, you must avoid using ChatGPT or other non-licensed generative AI in your work for UCPH.
10+security_review: The University of Copenhagen researcher tools page says staff and students may use Microsoft Copilot, and that work needing a generative AI tool should primarily use Microsoft Copilot Enterprise because it is security-approved and licensed by the university.
11+Evidence (en, 43ee56966fdd): Copilot, developed by Microsoft, is licensed by University of Copenhagen, allowing both staff and students to use it. If you need a generative AI tool for your work, you should primarily use Microsoft Copilot Enterprise, which is security-approved and licensed by University of Copenhagen.

Claim changes

5 claim records

research

University of Copenhagen authorship guidelines say AI-assisted technologies used in scholarly work must be clearly stated and declared; chatbots cannot be listed as co-authors, and researchers using AI-assisted technologies must be able to account for the results.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence92%Evidence1Languagesen

research

University of Copenhagen PhD guidance says AI-assisted technologies used in a thesis must be clearly disclosed and described, cannot be listed as an author, and leave the PhD student responsible for accuracy, integrity, and originality.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence92%Evidence1Languagesen

security_review

The University of Copenhagen researcher tools page says staff and students may use Microsoft Copilot, and that work needing a generative AI tool should primarily use Microsoft Copilot Enterprise because it is security-approved and licensed by the university.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence88%Evidence1Languagesen

ai_tool_treatment

University of Copenhagen guidance says the Copilot Enterprise-only guideline means employees must avoid using ChatGPT or other non-licensed generative AI in their work for UCPH.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen

privacy

University of Copenhagen employee guidance says employees may not enter personal data or confidential or copyrighted information into generative AI tools and should use only the licensed Copilot Enterprise tool for UCPH work.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesen

Source snapshots

4 source attributions