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.
Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeld
Wijzigingslogboek
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.
Samenvatting wijzigingen
Huidige actualiteit en beoordelingsstatus van openbare gegevens.
University of Antwerp currently has 5 source-backed claim records and 4 official source attributions. Latest tracked changed date: 16 mei 2026. No tracker diff rows are recorded in the latest public release.
Deze pagina combineert alle openbare releasediffs voor University of Antwerp. Individuele releasesnapshots blijven beschikbaar via hun release-specifieke URL's.
Er zijn nog geen beleidverschillen tussen releases geregistreerd voor deze universiteit. De pagina houdt nog steeds bij welke bronnen onderbouwing bieden, officiële bronaanwijzingen, de beoordelingsstatus, de actualiteit van bronnen en openbare JSON voor ontdekking en citatie.
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.
Zojuist geëxtraheerde beweringen zijn toevoegingen aan de tracker en zijn niet per se recent door de universiteit gepubliceerd. Wijzigingen in bron-snapshots tonen hashwijzigingen voor dezelfde bron-URL en zijn op zichzelf geen beleidswijzigingen.
Diff-categorieën
Semantische classificatie voor deze release diff.
Gecombineerd releasediff
Geünificeerde trackerdiff gegenereerd vanuit alle openbare releasesnapshots voor deze universiteit.
Universiteit of Antwerp combined release verschil
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.
Geschiedenis releases
0 public release diffs
Aanpassingen claimen
5 Claimen registers
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.
Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeld
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.
Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeld
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.
Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeld
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.
Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeld
Bronsnapshots
4 source attributions
AI-proofing
official_guidance Tracker checked at 16 mei 2026, 16:20
Artificial Intelligence
official_guidance Tracker checked at 16 mei 2026, 16:12
Guidelines for (Generative) Artificial Intelligence in Research at UAntwerp
official_pdf Tracker checked at 16 mei 2026, 16:16
Open-book exams: what to be mindful of as a lecturer
official_guidance Tracker checked at 16 mei 2026, 16:18