Policy presence
Charles Darwin University has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Casuarina, Australia
Charles Darwin University
Charles Darwin University has 8 source-backed AI policy claims from 4 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 8 reviewed claims. Last checked May 16, 2026.
Charles Darwin University AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
Charles Darwin University has 8 source-backed AI policy claims from 4 official source attributions, including 8 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 16, 2026. Discovery context: Charles Darwin University is listed as QS 2026 rank =584.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists Charles Darwin University as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 16, 2026 and last changed on May 16, 2026. The record contains 8 source-backed claims, including 8 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/charles-darwin-university.json. The entity-level confidence is 96%. 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 Security review claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Evidence includes Procurement claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- No specific AI service name is highlighted by the current public claim text.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution 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
Charles Darwin University has 3 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
Charles Darwin University has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
Charles Darwin University has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.
Privacy and data entry
Charles Darwin University has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Charles Darwin University has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
Charles Darwin University has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
Charles Darwin University 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
Charles Darwin University has 2 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Security and procurement
Charles Darwin University has 2 source-backed public claims for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
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
8 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Ai Tool Treatment
Charles Darwin University's formal Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy sets principles for GenAI use and applies to all CDU employees and students.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: formal_genai_policy_applies_employees_students
Original evidence
Evidence 1This policy sets out principles for the use of generative artificial intelligence (gen AI) at the University. This policy applies to all employees and students of the University.
Privacy
CDU prohibits employees and students from putting confidential or sensitive information or intellectual property into GenAI platforms.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: no_confidential_sensitive_information_or_ip_in_genai
Original evidence
Evidence 1Employees and students must ensure they do not put confidential or sensitive information or intellectual property into gen AI platforms.
Security Review
CDU staff may use generative AI tools for legitimate work purposes, but must not enter confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable University information unless it is appropriately de-identified or redacted; tools with unclear hosting, ownership, or data handling must not be used with University information.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: staff_legitimate_work_use_with_security_and_data_handling_limits
Original evidence
Evidence 1Staff may use generative AI tools for legitimate work purposes; however, University information that is confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable must not be entered into such tools unless it has been appropriately de-identified or redacted. Where the hosting location, ownership, or data-handling practices of a generative AI tool are unknown or unclear, the tool must not be used with University information.
Research
CDU's GenAI policy says GenAI use is never acceptable in peer review, in generating substantive content of research outputs including HDR theses, or in writing critical components of ethics applications.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_never_acceptable_peer_review_substantive_research_outputs_ethics_application_components
Original evidence
Evidence 1There are circumstances when the use of gen AI is never acceptable. This includes in the conduct of peer review, the generation of substantive content of research outputs, including HDR theses, and in the writing of the critical components of ethics applications.
Procurement
CDU says it does not generally maintain a static approved, preferred, or endorsed GenAI platform list, and Design Authority approval is required before institutionally adopting new GenAI platforms that are implemented, integrated, or used to process University data.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: no_static_approved_platform_list_design_authority_required_for_institutional_adoption
Original evidence
Evidence 1The University does not generally maintain a static list of "approved", "preferred", or "endorsed" gen AI platforms. Approval by the Design Authority is required prior to the adoption of new gen AI platforms where they are to be institutionally implemented, integrated with University systems, or used to process University data.
Academic Integrity
CDU requires students and employees to be transparent about and disclose GenAI use, with academic integrity guidance applying to students.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_use_disclosure_required
Original evidence
Evidence 1Students and employees must be transparent about and disclose gen AI use and should refer to the Academic Integrity Policy for more guidance on academic integrity.
Academic Integrity
CDU's academic integrity guidance identifies inappropriate or unsanctioned GenAI use as academic misconduct and says CDU will not tolerate misrepresenting AI-generated content as a student's own work or failing to disclose AI use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: inappropriate_or_unsanctioned_genai_use_academic_misconduct
Original evidence
Evidence 1Types of Academic Misconduct include Generative artificial intelligence: Inappropriate or unsanctioned use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools. CDU staff and students will not tolerate: Misrepresenting AI generated content as your own; Failure to disclose use of AI.
Research
For HDR studies, CDU guidance says GenAI may assist but should not replace a candidate's original intellectual contribution, GenAI use should be clearly acknowledged, and supervisors or external examiners should not use GenAI to critique or assess candidate work.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: hdr_genai_assist_not_replace_acknowledge_no_ai_supervisor_examiner_assessment
Original evidence
Evidence 1GenAI tools may assist but should not replace the candidate's original intellectual contribution. Do I need to acknowledge GenAI use? Yes--clearly. Can I use GenAI to read, critique, or offer feedback on student work? No. Can I use GenAI to assess or critique candidate work? No.
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
Academic Integrity
cdu.edu.au
Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy
policies.cdu.edu.au
Information Security and Access Policy
policies.cdu.edu.au
Using generative AI (GenAI) in HDR studies
cdu.edu.au
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.