University AI Policy Tracker

Registros abiertos y basados en evidencia sobre politicas universitarias de IA.

APIGitHub
Idioma
ENZHFRPL

Change log

Paris Lodron University of Salzburg

Source-backed change history with no release-to-release policy diff rows recorded yet; current claims, official sources, review state, and freshness remain visible across 0 public release records.

Review: Agent reviewedLast checkedMay 18, 2026Last changedMay 18, 2026Claims5Sources2Release records0
University pagePublic JSONMonthly reportUniversity index

Change summary

Current public record freshness and review state.

Paris Lodron University of Salzburg currently has 5 source-backed claim records and 2 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: May 18, 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.

This page combines all public release diffs for Paris Lodron University of Salzburg. Individual release snapshots remain available from their release-specific URLs.

No release-to-release policy diff rows are recorded for this university yet. The page still tracks current source-backed claims, official source attributions, review state, source freshness, and public JSON for discovery and citation.

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.

Newly extracted claims are tracker additions and are not necessarily newly published by the university. Source snapshot changes show hash changes for the same source URL and are not by themselves policy changes.

Diff categories

Semantic classification for this release diff.

Policy text0Newly extracted0Evidence0Source snapshots0Source text0Source added0Source removed0

Combined release diff

Unified tracker diff generated from all public release snapshots for this university.

Paris Lodron University of Salzburg combined release diff

Initial tracked release. Lines represent public claim/evidence records entering the release snapshot.

+10-0
11 # Paris Lodron University of Salzburg AI policy record
2+academic_integrity: For exams, the guide says AI-tool use is at the discretion of teachers; if no corresponding rule has been made, AI tools are unauthorized aids and are not permitted.
3+Evidence (de, ee7496a0b179): Auch der Einsatz von KI-Werkzeugen bei Prüfungen liegt im Ermessen der Lehrenden. Wurde keine entsprechende Regelung getroffen, sind KI-Werkzeuge unerlaubte Hilfsmittel und daher nicht zulässig (§ 2a HS QSG).
4+ai_tool_treatment: The University of Salzburg guide says teachers and thesis supervisors set, for each course, assessment, exam, or supervised thesis, whether and to what extent AI technologies may or should be used, and that these requirements for assessed work should be communicated transparently and in writing in advance.
5+Evidence (de, ee7496a0b179): Lehrende und Betreuende legen für jede Lehrveranstaltung und Prüfungsleistung bzw. für jede unter ihrer Betreuung zu verfassende Abschlussarbeit individuell und spezifisch fest, ob und in welchem Umfang KI-Technologien genutzt werden dürfen oder sollen.
6+teaching: The guide recommends specifying AI use along three levels: unrestricted use, use within a defined framework, or a general ban as an unauthorized aid.
7+Evidence (de, ee7496a0b179): Es wird empfohlen, die Zulässigkeit des Einsatzes von KI-Technologien entlang einer dreistufigen Definition festzulegen: Der Einsatz von KI ist ohne Einschränkung erlaubt. Der Einsatz von KI ist in einem definierten Rahmen erlaubt. Der Einsatz von KI ist als unerlaubtes Hilfsmittel generell verboten.
8+privacy: The guide advises against entering personal or copyright-protected data into freely accessible free AI tools and recommends the University of Salzburg licensed tools Microsoft Copilot in M365 or Academic AI.
9+Evidence (de, ee7496a0b179): Bei der Nutzung frei zugänglicher und kostenloser KI-Tools im Internet sollten keine personenbezogenen oder urheberrechtlich geschützten Daten eingegeben werden ... Es wird daher empfohlen, die für die Universität Salzburg lizenzierten Werkzeuge Microsoft Copilot in M365 oder Academic AI zu verwenden.
10+teaching: The Senate recommendation says curriculum commissions may identify exams to be taken in secure environments or by analog means to prevent AI use, and may identify exams where AI instruments are useful or desired, especially using the university-licensed Academic AI.
11+Evidence (de, 347c01fcd7fc): Die Curricularkommissionen können im Curriculum definierte Prüfungen identifizieren, die in einer sicheren Umgebung oder überhaupt mit analogen Mitteln abzulegen sind, um die Heranziehung von KI zu unterbinden. Sie können außerdem ... Prüfungen identifizieren, bei deren Ablegung eine Inanspruchnahme von Instrumenten der KI sinnvoll oder sogar erwünscht ist ...

Release history

0 public release diffs

Claim changes

5 claim records

teaching

The Senate recommendation says curriculum commissions may identify exams to be taken in secure environments or by analog means to prevent AI use, and may identify exams where AI instruments are useful or desired, especially using the university-licensed Academic AI.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence90%Evidence1Languagesde

privacy

The guide advises against entering personal or copyright-protected data into freely accessible free AI tools and recommends the University of Salzburg licensed tools Microsoft Copilot in M365 or Academic AI.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence92%Evidence1Languagesde

academic_integrity

For exams, the guide says AI-tool use is at the discretion of teachers; if no corresponding rule has been made, AI tools are unauthorized aids and are not permitted.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence95%Evidence1Languagesde

teaching

The guide recommends specifying AI use along three levels: unrestricted use, use within a defined framework, or a general ban as an unauthorized aid.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence93%Evidence1Languagesde

ai_tool_treatment

The University of Salzburg guide says teachers and thesis supervisors set, for each course, assessment, exam, or supervised thesis, whether and to what extent AI technologies may or should be used, and that these requirements for assessed work should be communicated transparently and in writing in advance.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence94%Evidence1Languagesde

Source snapshots

2 source attributions