Journal des modifications

University of Antwerp

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.

Résumé des modifications

Actualité des dossiers publics et état d'examen actuel.

University of Antwerp currently has 5 source-backed claim records and 4 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: 16 mai 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.

Cette page combine toutes les différences de publication publique pour University of Antwerp. Les instantanés des versions individuelles restent disponibles via leurs URL spécifiques à la version.

Aucune ligne de différence de politique entre les versions n'est encore enregistrée pour cette université. La page suit toujours les affirmations actuelles étayées par des sources, les attributions de sources officielles, l'état d'examen, la fraîcheur des sources et les JSON publics pour la découverte et la 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.

Les affirmations récemment extraites sont des ajouts au suivi et ne sont pas nécessairement de nouvelles publications de l'université. Les changements d'instantané source montrent des variations de hachage pour la même URL source et ne constituent pas en eux-mêmes des changements de politique.

Catégories de différences

Classification sémantique pour cette différence de version.

Texte de la politique0Récemment extraits0Preuve0Instantanés source0Texte source0Source ajoutée0Source supprimée0

Différentiel de version combinée

Diffusion unifiée du suivi générée à partir de toutes les captures instantanées de version publique pour cette université.

différentiel Université of Antwerp combined release

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

+10-0
11 # University of Antwerp AI policy record
2+research: University of Antwerp research AI guidelines state that researchers who use AI tools in their research must acknowledge that use, while AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
3+Evidence (en, 1ee2f66ebba0): In addition to verifying the information provided, researchers must acknowledge the use of AI tools in their research. As mentioned earlier, AI tools cannot be listed as authors on a publication.
4+research: University of Antwerp research guidance says that when more responsibility is placed on an AI system, more human control is required, and that researchers remain responsible for correctness and robustness.
5+Evidence (en, bffbba8e7932): Key concept: the more responsibility is placed on the AI system, the more human control is required afterwards. The responsibility for the correctness and robustness of information ALWAYS lies with the researcher.
6+research: University of Antwerp research AI guidelines identify creating core publication or project-application content without thorough fact-checking and substantive editing, and peer review of others' publications or project applications, as uses to avoid.
7+Evidence (en, 1ee2f66ebba0): Use to be avoided: Creating the core content of publications or project applications without thorough factchecking and additional substantive editing. Peer review of publications or project applications by others.
8+teaching: University of Antwerp Dutch ECHO teaching guidance describes AI-proofing as creating teaching situations where students cannot use AI, or are detected if they use it when not allowed, and presents assignment-product changes, process changes, or both as options.
9+Evidence (nl, f57a89b63311): AI-proofing betekent dat je een onderwijssituatie creëert waarin studenten geen gebruik kunnen maken van AI, of waarin ze door de mand vallen als ze dat toch doen terwijl het niet is toegestaan.
10+teaching: University of Antwerp ECHO teaching guidance says lecturers can balance AI-tool use in open-book exams with deep understanding and fair assessment by designing sufficiently complex questions and clarifying whether and how students may use AI tools.
11+Evidence (en, dd51fd44f8e7): This can be done by making your exam questions sufficiently complex and specific, and by going over guidelines with the students beforehand, clarifying whether and how they can/may use AI tools in your open-book exam.

Historique des versions

0 public release diffs

Modifications d'affirmations

5 Affirmation enregistrements

research

University of Antwerp research AI guidelines state that researchers who use AI tools in their research must acknowledge that use, while AI tools cannot be listed as authors.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance92%Preuve1Languesen

research

University of Antwerp research guidance says that when more responsibility is placed on an AI system, more human control is required, and that researchers remain responsible for correctness and robustness.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance91%Preuve1Languesen

research

University of Antwerp research AI guidelines identify creating core publication or project-application content without thorough fact-checking and substantive editing, and peer review of others' publications or project applications, as uses to avoid.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance91%Preuve1Languesen

teaching

University of Antwerp Dutch ECHO teaching guidance describes AI-proofing as creating teaching situations where students cannot use AI, or are detected if they use it when not allowed, and presents assignment-product changes, process changes, or both as options.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance87%Preuve1Languesnl

teaching

University of Antwerp ECHO teaching guidance says lecturers can balance AI-tool use in open-book exams with deep understanding and fair assessment by designing sufficiently complex questions and clarifying whether and how students may use AI tools.

Révision: Révisé par un agentConfiance86%Preuve1Languesen

Instantanés source

4 source attributions