Policy presence
Chalmers University of Technology has 4 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Gothenburg, Sweden
Chalmers University of Technology
Chalmers University of Technology is listed as QS 2026 rank 165. Chalmers University of Technology has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
Chalmers University of Technology is listed as QS 2026 rank 165. Chalmers University of Technology has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 4 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists Chalmers University of Technology as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 15, 2026 and last changed on May 15, 2026. The record contains 6 source-backed claims, including 6 reviewed claims, from 4 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/chalmers-university-of-technology.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 AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT, 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.
- Privacy, sensitive-data, or security 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
Chalmers University of Technology has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
Chalmers University of Technology has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
Chalmers University of Technology has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.
Privacy and data entry
Chalmers University of Technology has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Chalmers University of Technology has 1 source-backed public claim for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
Chalmers University of Technology has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: required.
Named AI services
Chalmers University of Technology has 5 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
Chalmers University of Technology has 1 source-backed public claim 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
6 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Ai Tool Treatment
For thesis work, Chalmers says AI tools may be permitted, but students are required to take full responsibility and make AI-tool use clear and transparent, including how and to what extent the tools were used.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: thesis AI-tool use may be permitted with responsibility and transparent disclosure
Original evidence
Evidence 1You are required to assume full responsibility for your work and must be capable of justifying the choices you've made regarding its content. This includes engaging in discussions about and defending the role AI played in shaping your thesis, demonstrating a clear understanding of how it contributed.
Localized display only
Chalmers requires thesis authors to take full responsibility for their work and be able to justify the role AI played.
Privacy
For thesis work, Chalmers tells students to consult a Chalmers supervisor or relevant collaborator before using AI tools when there are uncertainties, particularly around data privacy and ethical issues.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: thesis AI-tool uncertainty around data privacy calls for supervisor or collaborator consultation
Original evidence
Evidence 1Always consult with your Chalmers’ supervisor or relevant industry/public sector collaborators before using AI tools if you have any uncertainties, particularly concerning data privacy and ethical issues.
Localized display only
Chalmers says thesis students should consult a supervisor or collaborator before AI use when data privacy or ethical issues are uncertain.
Academic Integrity
Chalmers Library's student guidance connects AI use to plagiarism or ghostwriting risk and says students need to be fully transparent, describe what they did, and cite the AI tool used.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: student AI use requires transparency and citation in academic-integrity context
Original evidence
Evidence 1Claiming that what someone else has written is your own text without referencing to it correctly is considered as plagiarism. In relation to AI, this can be interpreted as either plagiarism or ghostwriting, so you need to be fully transparent in your use of AI. Describe what you have done and cite correctly, including which AI tool you have used.
Localized display only
Chalmers Library links AI use to plagiarism or ghostwriting risk and tells students to be transparent and cite the AI tool used.
Ai Tool Treatment
Chalmers Library's student guidance says whether and how AI tools may be used in examinations is decided for each course by the coordinator and examiner, so students should ask at the beginning of each course.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: course-level coordinator and examiner decide examination AI-tool use
Original evidence
Evidence 1It is up to the coordinator and examiner for each individual course to decide whether and how AI tools are allowed to be used within the framework of the various examinations. Remember to ask at the beginning of each course!
Localized display only
Chalmers Library says course coordinators and examiners decide whether and how AI tools are allowed in each course's examinations.
Privacy
Chalmers Library's ethical-use guidance says users should not upload sensitive or private information, copyright-protected material, or text intended for a thesis, dissertation, or scientific publication to chatbots.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: avoid uploading sensitive private copyrighted or unpublished scholarly material to chatbots
Original evidence
Evidence 1Because of this, you should not upload material that contains sensitive or private information, or any material protected by copyright law, for example PDFs of scientific articles that you’ve downloaded from library databases. If you have text intended for a thesis, dissertation, or scientific publication, you should not submit it to a chatbot, as doing so may mean relinquishing your copyright to that material.
Localized display only
Chalmers Library cautions against uploading sensitive, private, copyrighted, or unpublished scholarly material to chatbots.
Ai Tool Treatment
Chalmers Library's teacher guidance says all Chalmers students and employees have access to Microsoft Copilot, while Chalmers does not currently have a license for ChatGPT.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: students and employees have Microsoft Copilot access; no current Chalmers ChatGPT license
Original evidence
Evidence 1All students and employees at Chalmers have access to the chatbot Microsoft Copilot. In addition, Chalmers offers Microsoft Copilot Pro licenses to employees who are interested, please contact your immediate manager. Chalmers does not currently have a license for ChatGPT.
Localized display only
Chalmers Library says students and employees have Microsoft Copilot access and that Chalmers does not currently license ChatGPT.
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
4 source attribution
Ethical Use of AI
guides.lib.chalmers.se
For Teachers
guides.lib.chalmers.se
Regulations for the use of AI tools in thesis work
chalmers.se
Using AI as a Student
guides.lib.chalmers.se
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.