Adelaide, Australia

Flinders University

Student guide · Topic coordinator rules

Check topic permission, acknowledgement and study level.

Copilot access with a Flinders account does not confer assessment permission. Topic instructions specify allowed uses and documentation. Coursework Level 1 review, serious Level 2 Statute 6.4 cases and HDR research-integrity procedures have distinct rules; HDR detection guidance is not universal.

De onderstaande richtlijnen zijn in het Engels; officiële bewijsstukken behouden hun oorspronkelijke taal.

Er is nog geen volledige samenvatting van de studentenregels; bekijk de verzamelde uitspraken en bronnen.

Reikwijdte en overgang

Copilot access with a Flinders account does not confer assessment permission. Topic instructions specify allowed uses and documentation. Coursework Level 1 review, serious Level 2 Statute 6.4 cases and HDR research-integrity procedures have distinct rules; HDR detection guidance is not universal.

CHECK TOPIC SCALE / FLINDERS comic: student in a blue hoodie checks topic instructions and assessment scale options.
Controleer de regels van je faculteit en opdracht.

Wat gebeurt er als AI-gebruik vragen oproept?

Aanvulling verzameld: 2026-10-08 · Huidige toepasselijkheid niet onafhankelijk bevestigd

Vergelijk het gepubliceerde universiteitsprofiel ↗

Samenvatting momenteel beschikbaar in het Engels

Wanneer vragen ontstaan

Bepaling over AIFormele procedure

Interpretatie van de site

The Student Academic Integrity Policy includes under plagiarism an assessment portion generated by an algorithm, computer generator or AI without appropriate permission and/or acknowledgement. The policy’s categories and consequences depend on the case; AI use is not an automatic Level 2 finding.

Reikwijdte: students · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Detectiebewijs · Ondersteuning en aanpassingen

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: students · university

a. Plagiarism When the work of another is represented, intentionally or unintentionally, as one's own original work, without appropriate acknowledgement of the author, creator or the source. This includes but is not limited to the following: i. paraphrasing from a source text, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form (e.g., article spinning, text rewriting and content creation tools), without appropriate acknowledgement ii. word-for-word copying, cutting or pasting statements from a single source or multiple sources or piecing together work of others and representing them as original work. In cases where direct extracts are presented without quotation marks, it is not sufficient to merely acknowledge the source. iii. submitting as one's own work all or part of another student's work, even with the student's knowledge or consent iv. submitting an assessment task where a portion of the assessment task has been generated by an algorithm, computer generator or other artificial intelligence without appropriate permission and/or acknowledgement
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 351–365
SHA-256: fd739e9166b22af1003a2c5ff36177cf13af79189567a5ed3440606ff8e0d723

Bepaling over AIOfficiële richtlijnen

Interpretatie van de site

HDR students must declare whether and how GenAI was used in research and thesis writing, discuss use and acknowledgement with supervisors, and record it at milestones. A research-integrity breach follows Breach of Research Integrity Procedures; coursework penalties are not substituted for this HDR route.

Reikwijdte: Higher Degree by Research · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Detectiebewijs · Ondersteuning en aanpassingen

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: HDR students and supervisors · programme

Why do I need to acknowledge the use of GenAI in my thesis? keyboard_arrow_up To uphold the integrity of your research and investment of your time, it is important that your research is recognised as your own and to remove any doubt for the readers. For further information please refer to a 2024 BLOG entitled Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Research. What are the penalties for students who do not declare they have used GenAI in their thesis? keyboard_arrow_up It is a requirement via the HDR Policy and supporting procedures that students declare whether and how they have used GenAI in their research and thesis writing. HDR students must also abide by the Research Integrity Policy. If there is a research integrity breach, the Breach of Research Integrity Procedures will be enacted. Can I use GenAI in my thesis? keyboard_arrow_up You can use GenAI in your thesis. In line with the Charter for HDR Student and Supervisor Responsibilities it is important for you to understand and discuss the University’s statement on AI in research with your supervisor(s), to understand what GenAI is, and how it can be used in research for your specific discipline. The use of GenAI must be responsible, ethical, and consistent with the core principles of research integrity that appear in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. It is important to have an agreement, and open, transparent and ongoing discussions about the use of GenAI and how to declare or acknowledge it with your supervisor(s). You will be asked at each Milestone to record details of your GenAI use and discussions. How do I acknowledge the use of GenAI in my thesis? keyboard_arrow_up It is important to acknowledge the use of GenAI in your thesis submitted to external examiners to allay any concerns. When you use GenAI in your research or thesis, clearly acknowledge the use of the tools in the relevant chapter. If you have not used GenAI in your research or thesis, to remove any doubt, clearly state that no GenAI has been utilised in the thesis. This can be achieved through a sentence in the introduction. If you have used GenAI, you can easily acknowledge this with footnotes, for example: "Microsoft Copilot Chat was used to assist in the [for example: editing process and to identify improvements in writing style], in accordance with the current guidance at Flinders University." You will be required to make a declaration about your use of GenAI in your final thesis for examination in accordance with the HDR Thesis Rules declaration.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 227–241
SHA-256: 23a14bfce81263879a78474651d0226a68bad716a246b769af0dddadea6acc2a

Hoe je kunt reageren

Advies uit de bronOfficiële richtlijnen

Interpretatie van de site

In a Level 1 inquiry, the Second Reviewer gives at least five University business days’ notice, supplies the allegation and related documents, and invites a written response, attendance, or both. A permitted support person may attend. Exceptional/unforeseen circumstances can justify an extension at the reviewer’s discretion; the inquiry may proceed without the student.

Level 1 Inquiry notice · 5 dagen

Instelling · Verplicht bij deze procedure

Minstens dit aantal dagen vóór de hoorzitting. Controleer startpunt, reikwijdte en uitzonderingen in de samenvatting en oorspronkelijke tekst.

Reikwijdte: students · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Detectiebewijs · Ondersteuning en aanpassingen

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: students · university

b. The Level 1 Inquiry’s purpose is to determine: i. if the alleged failure to meet academic integrity requirements has been substantiated ii. the category of the failure, and iii. the appropriate responses in accordance with s. 5.3 of the Student Academic Integrity Policy. c. The Second Reviewer will set the date and time of the Level 1 Inquiry. d. The Second Reviewer will give the student a minimum of 5 University business days’ notice of the Level 1 Inquiry. e. The Second Reviewer will notify the student of the allegation and inquiry by email (to their University email address) (template available), which must include: i. a link to the Student Academic Integrity Policy and these procedures ii. the details of the allegation, including copies of all related documents iii. the time, date and place of the inquiry—the inquiry may be held in person, or using any technology which enables all those participating to communicate concurrently with each other and to participate effectively iv. an invitation for the student to respond to the allegation in writing, or by attendance at the inquiry (either in person or via technology), or both v. an invitation for the student to be accompanied at the meeting (either in person or via technology) by a support person, namely a Flinders University staff member or student or a representative of the Flinders University Student Association Student Assist team [Legal representation is not permitted, but a legally qualified student or representative may attend as a support person provided they are not acting in a professional legal capacity.] f. A student may request an extension of time to respond to the allegations due to unforeseen or exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the student, which may be granted at the Second Reviewer’s discretion. g. The Second Reviewer will conduct the Inquiry at the scheduled time, whether the student has responded to the notification or not, or is present or not. h. If the student is present at the Inquiry, the Second Reviewer must ensure they are given an opportunity to present a response. The student and their support person may be asked to leave before the final determination is made. i. Based on all the evidence before the Inquiry, the Second Reviewer will make a determination on whether the allegation of failure to meet academic integrity requirements has been substantiated.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 408–439
SHA-256: 34d07cfb90077e005696715e8b6e6e9c18bf147d0692378ece6c6f697efdb288

Advies uit de bronOfficiële richtlijnen

Interpretatie van de site

A Level 1 determination can be reviewed under Student Review and Appeal rules, with a further Student Appeals Committee appeal on specified grounds. Level 2 Board of Inquiry decisions instead follow the Statute 6.4 appeal procedure; do not apply the Level 1 clock to them by assumption.

Reikwijdte: students · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Detectiebewijs · Ondersteuning en aanpassingen

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: students · university

7. Reviews and appeals a. A student may request a review of a determination of Level 1 Academic Misconduct by a Second Reviewer in accordance with the Student Review and Appeal Policy and procedures. b. A student who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the review may appeal to the Student Appeals Committee, if specified grounds are met, in accordance with the Student Review and Appeal Policy and procedures. c. A student may appeal a Level 2 Serious Academic Misconduct decision by a Board of Inquiry in accordance with the policy and procedures for Handling a Matter under Statute 6.4–Student Conduct.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 483–490
SHA-256: 34d07cfb90077e005696715e8b6e6e9c18bf147d0692378ece6c6f697efdb288

Mogelijke uitkomsten

Advies uit de bronFormele procedure

Interpretatie van de site

For Level 1 coursework cases, exam/test/quiz penalties differ from other assessments. A first case in other assessment may require resubmission capped at Pass or a deduction up to 100% with no resubmission/supplementary assessment. These are conditional policy options after a finding, not automatic AI sanctions.

Reikwijdte: students · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: students · university

Penalties for Level 1 Academic Misconduct Coursework topic: a. Where the failure occurs in academic work submitted for an examination, test or quiz for a topic: i. A deduction of up to 100% for the examination, test or quiz, or the relevant component OR ii. A Fail Grade for the topic, with no further option for assessment i.e. supplementary assessment. b. Where the failure occurs in academic work submitted for any form of assessment not covered by a. above— First Level 1 case: i. A requirement that the student re-submit the assessment task, with a maximum obtainable grade of Pass OR ii. A deduction of up to 100% of the available mark for the assessment task, with no option for resubmission or supplementary assessment. Second Level 1 case: i. One of the penalties available for a First Level 1 case OR ii. A Fail Grade for the topic, with a recommendation to the Dean (Education) that the student be permitted a supplementary assessment OR iii. A Fail Grade for the topic, with no further option for assessment i.e. supplementary assessment.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 234–263
SHA-256: fd739e9166b22af1003a2c5ff36177cf13af79189567a5ed3440606ff8e0d723

Advies uit de bronFormele procedure

Interpretatie van de site

Level 2 covers a student with two previous Level 1 records or a failure sufficiently serious to prejudice others, assessment integrity or University reputation. It is referred under Statute 6.4; possible penalties include suspension, exclusion or expulsion, rather than a mandatory result for every AI concern.

Reikwijdte: students · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: students · university

Level 2 Serious Academic Misconduct a. Level 2 Serious Academic Misconduct is any failure to meet academic integrity requirements by a student: i. if the student already has two records of Level 1 Academic Misconduct OR ii. if the failure is so serious that it prejudices the interest of other students, the integrity of the assessment scheme itself, or the reputation of the University. b. All allegations of Level 2 Serious Academic Misconduct will be referred for action under Statute 6.4– Student Conduct. c. Any of the penalties available for Academic Misconduct Level 1 under this policy may be imposed, as well as any of the penalties under Statute 6.4–Student Conduct, which include suspension, exclusion or expulsion from the University. d. Where a determination of Level 2 Academic Misconduct is made, the student’s action is recorded as Serious Academic Misconduct on the Academic Integrity Register.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 309–322
SHA-256: fd739e9166b22af1003a2c5ff36177cf13af79189567a5ed3440606ff8e0d723

Herziening en beroep

Advies uit de bronFormele procedure

Interpretatie van de site

A written review request under Student Review and Appeal Procedures is due within 20 University business days of being advised of the decision, unless the University accepts exceptional or compelling circumstances. Help is allowed, but the request must use the student’s own words and name with relevant decision details and evidence.

Review request · 20 dagen

Student · Verplicht bij deze procedure

Binnen de vermelde termijn. Controleer startpunt, reikwijdte en uitzonderingen in de samenvatting en oorspronkelijke tekst.

Reikwijdte: students · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: students · university

3.1. Reviews a. Students must request a review in writing within 20 University business days of being advised of the decision in their matter, unless the University considers that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances. b. Students must request a review via the University’s lodgement process . c. Students may obtain assistance in preparing a request for a review from Student Advocacy and Welfare or from any other third party of their choosing (e.g. advocacy groups, legal representatives, friends or family members). However, the request must be written in a student’s own words and lodged under their own name. d. When lodging a request for review, a student should provide as much detail as possible, including: i. the nature and details of the original decision and any facts or documentation regarding it ii. the written decision of the decision-maker iii. their reasons for requesting the review, which may include a statement explaining why they consider the decision to be in error, or why they believe the consequences resulting from the decision are unreasonable in their circumstances. iv. any relevant supporting documents.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 37–53
SHA-256: ac49d78eb3be8545252f71bbe06553b52eb6443e1f573cfdaaf22ca342bc326e

Advies uit de bronFormele procedure

Interpretatie van de site

An appeal against the review decision requires grounds and must be lodged in writing within 20 University business days of notification of the review outcome, unless the University accepts exceptional or compelling circumstances. Include the review decision, grounds and supporting case/evidence. This is a second clock with a different trigger.

Appeal after review · 20 dagen

Student · Verplicht bij deze procedure

Binnen de vermelde termijn. Controleer startpunt, reikwijdte en uitzonderingen in de samenvatting en oorspronkelijke tekst.

Reikwijdte: students · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: students · university

3.3. Student Appeals submission process a. Students may lodge an appeal against a review decision if grounds are met. b. Students may obtain assistance in preparing an appeal from Student Advocacy and Welfare or from any other third party of their choosing (e.g. advocacy groups, legal representatives, friends or family members). An appeal must be written in a student’s own words and under their own name. c. Appeals must be lodged in writing via the University’s lodgement process within 20 University business days of notification of the outcome of the review, unless the University considers that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances. PAGE 4 4 Flinders.edu.au ABN: 65 542 596 200 CRICOS No: 00114A d. When lodging an appeal, a student should provide as much detail as possible, including: i. a copy of the written notice of the outcome of the review ii. specifying the ground(s) for appeal, in accordance with s.3.4 of the Student Review and Appeal Policy iii. outlining a case in support of the ground(s) for appeal, including any evidence iv. all supporting documentation.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 146–168
SHA-256: ac49d78eb3be8545252f71bbe06553b52eb6443e1f573cfdaaf22ca342bc326e

Ondersteuning en aanpassingen · Detectiebewijs

Bepaling over AIOfficiële richtlijnen

Interpretatie van de site

Flinders students can access Microsoft Copilot Chat with enterprise data protection using Flinders credentials, selecting Work and checking the shield. Each topic or assessment sets permitted uses, documentation and acknowledgement. Using Copilot when it is not approved can breach academic integrity.

Reikwijdte: students · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: students · university

Flinders University students have access to Copilot Chat with enterprise data protection - this means that your chats are private, secure, and anonymous and they are not used to train the underlying AI model. Simply login with your Flinders details, following the steps below.  Steps for using Copilot Chat  Need help? Access Copilot Chat Go to https://m365.cloud.microsoft/ or open the Microsoft 365 App. Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome are recommended. These allow you to engage with content on a webpage using Copilot in a side panel. If you use a free personal Microsoft account, log out of this and follow the next steps to login through the University. Select to ‘Sign in’. Login with your Flinders University details (email, FAN, password). If you are given a choice between ‘Work’ or ‘Personal’, select ‘Work’. Check for the shield icon. This indicates that your data is protected. Learn more about Copilot Chat data protection & security Need help accessing Copilot Chat?  Follow these steps to make the most of Copilot Chat 1. Check that use of GenAI is approved for your topic keyboard_arrow_up Before using Copilot Chat, you first need to confirm if you can use GenAI tools and what you can use them for. Each topic – and sometimes each assessment piece – will have its own guidelines for how AI tools are and are not allowed to be used. These guidelines may also indicate what information you need to provide, such as the prompts you entered and a copy of the output generated. Check your assignment instructions or ask your teacher if you are unsure or want further clarification. The Unsure about AI? Just ask video includes some questions you can ask, or you can get some ideas from this AI Assessment Scale. Remember, using Copilot Chat when it is not approved can be a breach of academic integrity. Follow the instructions from your teachers on if you can use Copilot Chat, what you can use it for, what documentation you need to provide, and how to acknowledge your use.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 143–166
SHA-256: 444345222f340a08a7f6a5efc3733b223c2d82f82903d415c342d04d838fe77d

Bepaling over AIOfficiële richtlijnenDetectiebewijs

Interpretatie van de site

Flinders’ HDR guidance requires all HDR students to submit an iThenticate report with milestone written work and examination theses. It describes AI-writing detection capabilities as helping identify potential generated content and recommends ongoing supervisor conversations. This is HDR guidance, not a detector-only proof rule or a rule for all coursework students.

Reikwijdte: Higher Degree by Research · Student Academic Integrity Policy effective 10 October 2024; coursework Level 1, Statute 6.4 Level 2 and HDR research-integrity routes must remain distinct.

Bekijk oorspronkelijke tekst en voorwaarden

Reikwijdte: HDR students and supervisors · programme

Can I / should I use an AI detector? What about the AI features of software (e.g., for systematic reviews) - not in 'writing' per se? keyboard_arrow_up At Flinders University all HDR students must submit an iThenticate report with their written work for Milestones and thesis for examination. iThenticate is a plagiarism-detection software from Turnitin, and includes AI writing detection capabilities in helping identify potential AI-generated content in submitted work. HDR supervisors should have regular and ongoing open conversations with their students throughout candidature about the appropriate use and acknowledgement of GenAI.
Bekijk officiële bron ↗

Verzameld: 2026-10-08 · 246–249
SHA-256: 23a14bfce81263879a78474651d0226a68bad716a246b769af0dddadea6acc2a

Verzameling en versies

Gepubliceerde brongebaseerde aanvullingen. Engelse samenvattingen en oorspronkelijke citaten staan los van het beoordeelde dossier. Mogelijke procedures en uitkomsten zijn geen automatische straffen voor AI. De huidige toepasselijkheid is niet onafhankelijk bevestigd; controleer de bronreikwijdte en versie.

Vergeleken met opgeslagen tekst; geen officiële vertaling

Hashes maken vergelijking van opgeslagen teksten mogelijk; ze bevestigen geen actuele geldigheid of onveranderlijkheid. De onderwerpen vormen geen verplichte volgorde.

AI-tools en toegang

Toegang is geen toestemming voor gebruik bij een beoordeling. Controleer opdrachtregels, toegelaten gebruikers en databeperkingen.

Gearchiveerd record; raadpleeg de officiële bron voor actuele toegang. Toegangsgegevens en citaten blijven in de oorspronkelijke taal.

  • Microsoft Copilot Chat with Enterprise Data ProtectionOfficiële aanbevelingToegestaan binnen het bronbereik
    Toegang, voorwaarden en officiële bronnen

    Flinders students can use Copilot Chat with enterprise data protection through their university account; assessment use remains subject to topic instructions.

    Sign in to Microsoft 365 or m365.cloud.microsoft with Flinders University details and choose the Work account.

    Not specified.

    Officiële bron 1 ↗

    Oorspronkelijk citaat

    Flinders University students have access to Copilot Chat with enterprise data protection. Simply login with your Flinders details; select Work if asked to choose between Work or Personal.
    Officiële bron 2 ↗

    Oorspronkelijk citaat

    All HDR students and supervisors have access to the University-approved and recommended Microsoft Copilot with Enterprise Data Protection [Copilot Chat].

Reviewed record

Beoordeelde uitspraken

Beoordeelde uitspraken: 6

Academische integriteitBeoordeelde uitspraken: 2

Academic Integrity

Flinders states that students are responsible for using AI consistently with University, course, topic, assessment, and academic integrity requirements, including acknowledging generative AI use.

Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeldVertrouwen95%

Genormaliseerde waarde: student_ai_use_must_follow_requirements_and_acknowledgement

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 1
Students have specific responsibility to: Use AI models in ethical and responsible ways that are consistent with the University’s assessment and academic integrity policies and procedures, and the terms of use of the AI providers.

Academic Integrity

Flinders' student academic integrity page states that misusing AI tools includes using tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or DALL-E without topic coordinator permission and without appropriate acknowledgement or citations.

Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeldVertrouwen95%

Genormaliseerde waarde: unauthorized_or_unacknowledged_ai_use_is_ai_misuse

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 1
Misusing Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools includes the use of AI tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or DALL-E without the permission of your topic coordinator and without appropriate acknowledgement or citations.
OnderwijsBeoordeelde uitspraken: 2

Onderwijs

Flinders provides staff with AI assessment scale template instructions that range from no AI permitted through prompted, assisted, task-completion, and full AI use, with acknowledgement expectations attached to permitted use.

Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeldVertrouwen94%

Genormaliseerde waarde: assessment_scale_template_instructions_with_acknowledgement

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 1
For this assessment task, students are permitted to use in-built generative AI such as slide design or grammatical/editing but are required to generate their own responses in line with conditions and expectations of the task outlined in the instructions.

Onderwijs

Flinders' staff good-practice guide recommends that staff take steps to design for academic integrity and artificial intelligence.

Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeldVertrouwen90%

Genormaliseerde waarde: staff_guidance_recommends_designing_for_academic_integrity_and_ai

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 1
We recommend that you take the following steps to design for academic integrity and AI.
Regels voor AI-toolsBeoordeelde uitspraken: 2

Ai Tool Treatment

Microsoft Copilot Chat with Enterprise Data Protection is listed for Flinders University in an official university AI tools source. Derived availability: allowed. Derived endorsement type: officially endorsed.

Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeldVertrouwen97%

Genormaliseerde waarde: {"tool":"microsoft_copilot","rawToolName":"Microsoft Copilot Chat with Enterprise Data Protection","description":"Flinders students can use Copilot Chat with enterprise data protection through their university account; assessment use remains subject to topic instructions.","howToObtain":"Sign in to Microsoft 365 or m365.cloud.microsoft with Flinders University details and choose the Work account.","costToUser":"Not specified.","availability":"allowed","endorsementType":"officially_endorsed"}

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 1
Flinders University students have access to Copilot Chat with enterprise data protection. Simply login with your Flinders details; select Work if asked to choose between Work or Personal.

Gelokaliseerde weergave only

Flinders University students have access to Copilot Chat with enterprise data protection. Simply login with your Flinders details; select Work if asked to choose between Work or Personal.

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 2
All HDR students and supervisors have access to the University-approved and recommended Microsoft Copilot with Enterprise Data Protection [Copilot Chat].

Gelokaliseerde weergave only

All HDR students and supervisors have access to the University-approved and recommended Microsoft Copilot with Enterprise Data Protection [Copilot Chat].

Ai Tool Treatment

Flinders University's AI position statement says AI should be used responsibly, ethically, and transparently, with attention to privacy, security, stakeholder needs, and ongoing evaluation.

Beoordeling: Door agent beoordeeldVertrouwen92%

Genormaliseerde waarde: responsible_ethical_transparent_ai_use

Oorspronkelijk bewijs

Bewijs 1
We also recognise the challenges of this rapidly evolving technology and are committed to using AI in an ethical and transparent manner, consistent with our values of integrity, courage, and excellence.

Source record

Officiële bronnen

Bronnen: 6

Open de lijst met officiële bronnen
Dossierinformatie, JSON en bronvermelding
BeoordelenAI-ondersteunde beoordelingVertrouwen97%Status van momentopnameNiet gepubliceerdJSONOpenbare JSON

Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. "Flinders University AI Policy Tracker record." Last checked July 19, 2026. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/flinders-university

Original university source language remains canonical. This tracker is not an official university statement.

Wijzigingslogboek openen

Saved from University AI Policy Tracker. This record summarizes the cited sources; it is not an official university statement or assessment permission. Source and review dates are listed above. Hashes identify retained content, not authorization.