Policy presence
University of Nottingham has 3 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Nottingham, United Kingdom
University of Nottingham
University of Nottingham has 7 source-backed AI policy claims from 5 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 7 reviewed claims. Last checked May 23, 2026.
University of Nottingham AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
University of Nottingham has 7 source-backed AI policy claims from 5 official source attributions, including 7 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 23, 2026. Discovery context: University of Nottingham is listed as QS 2026 rank 97.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists University of Nottingham as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 23, 2026 and last changed on May 23, 2026. The record contains 7 source-backed claims, including 7 reviewed claims, from 5 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-nottingham.json. The entity-level confidence is 95%. This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless the linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy signals in this record
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution language appears in the public claim text.
- Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related language appears in the public claim text.
Review: Agent reviewed
This reference record summarizes visible public data only. Official sources and original-language evidence remain canonical; confidence is separate from review state.
This page 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.
Policy profile
Deterministic source-backed dimensions derived from this record's public claims.
Review: Machine candidate
Policy profile rows are machine-candidate derived metadata. They are not final policy conclusions; inspect the linked claim evidence before reuse.
Analysis page-quality metadata is available at /api/public/v1/analysis/page-quality.json.
AI disclosure
University of Nottingham has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Nottingham has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Nottingham has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Nottingham has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Academic integrity
University of Nottingham has 4 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Approved tools
University of Nottingham has 2 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Nottingham has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
No source-backed public claim about teaching guidance is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about instructor, classroom, assessment-design, or syllabus guidance.
Research guidance
University of Nottingham has 2 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Security and procurement
No source-backed public claim about AI security review or procurement is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about security review, procurement, vendor approval, risk assessment, authentication, SSO, or enterprise licensing.
Coverage score measures breadth of public, source-backed coverage only. It is not a policy quality, strictness, legal adequacy, safety, or compliance score.
Evidence-backed claims
7 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
The University of Nottingham Quality Manual includes unpermitted generative-AI-generated or AI-improved assessment work within false authorship.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unpermitted_genai_generated_or_improved_assessment_work_false_authorship
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1False Authorship includes the submission of work that is generated and/or improved by software that is not permitted for that assessment. This may include the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) software to produce text, images or data or other work (e.g., Copilot, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, BARD, Wordtune, Quillbot, DALL-E, chatbots and similar).
Widok lokalny only
The Quality Manual includes unpermitted AI-generated or AI-improved assessment work within false authorship.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Nottingham student guidance says AI use for assessed work is assessment-specific: module or assessment information should say whether AI use is essential, optional, or prohibited, and students should not assume permission.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: assessment_specific_ai_use_essential_optional_prohibited_check_required
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1Your module tutor and/or assessment documents should specify which uses of AI are essential, optional, and/or prohibited for each assessed piece of work. The information should also tell you how to acknowledge and provide evidence of any AI use. If you can't find this information, check with your module convenor. Do not make any assumptions about uses of AI in your assessments.
Widok lokalny only
Nottingham says AI use is assessment-specific and students should not assume permission when guidance is absent.
Privacy
For study support outside assessments, University of Nottingham guidance recommends Microsoft Copilot with a Nottingham login and says logged-in Copilot will not record prompts, inputs, or uploads as training data.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: microsoft_copilot_recommended_for_study_support_with_login_privacy_note
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1When using generative AI to support your studies outside of your assessments, the university provides access to and recommends use of Microsoft Copilot, with your University of Nottingham login. When you are logged in, Copilot will not record your prompts, inputs, and uploads as training data. This is the best way to maintain privacy and data protection whilst using generative AI.
Widok lokalny only
For study support outside assessment, Nottingham recommends logged-in Microsoft Copilot and says prompts, inputs and uploads are not recorded as training data.
Academic Integrity
For assessments where AI use is essential or optional, University of Nottingham guidance says acknowledgement expectations should come from module or assessment information and that students should keep records or chat logs of AI interactions.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: allowed_ai_assessment_use_acknowledgement_and_records_expected
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1Where use of AI in your assessed work is marked as essential or optional, information on how to acknowledge your use of AI should be included in your module handbook or assessment brief. Whenever you are interacting with generative AI, it is good practice to keep a full record or chat log of these interactions.
Widok lokalny only
For essential or optional AI use, Nottingham says acknowledgement instructions should be in module or assessment information and recommends keeping chat logs.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Nottingham says each assessment task will indicate whether use of generative AI is essential, optional, or prohibited.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: University of Nottingham says each assessment task will indicate whether use of generative AI is essential, optional, or prohibited.
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1You will be advised whether use of generative AI is essential, optional, or prohibited for each assessment task.
Academic Integrity
University of Nottingham equates prohibited generative AI use in an assessment task with false authorship.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: University of Nottingham equates prohibited generative AI use in an assessment task with false authorship.
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1Where use of generative AI is prohibited for an assessment task, the university equates use of these tools with false authorship.
Academic Integrity
University of Nottingham says students are responsible for checking per assessment whether AI use is essential, optional, or prohibited.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: University of Nottingham says students are responsible for checking per assessment whether AI use is essential, optional, or prohibited.
Oryginalny dowod
Evidence 1It is your responsibility to check on a per-assessment basis whether use of AI is essential, optional, or prohibited.
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Candidate claims are not final policy conclusions. They preserve source URL, source snapshot hash, evidence, confidence, and review state so the record can be audited before review.
Official sources
5 source attribution
Regulation on academic misconduct
nottingham.ac.uk
Using AI in assessment
nottingham.ac.uk
Using AI in assessment
nottingham.ac.uk
Using AI to support your studies
nottingham.ac.uk
Using generative artificial intelligence (AI)
nottingham.ac.uk
Change log
Source-check timeline and diff-style claim/evidence preview.
View the public change record for this university, including source snapshot hashes, claim review states, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed evidence.
Corrections and missing evidence
Corrections create review tasks and do not directly change this public record.
If an official source is missing, stale, moved, blocked, or incorrectly summarized, submit a source URL, policy change report, or institution correction for review. Corrections must preserve source URLs, source language, original evidence, review state, and audit history.