Policy presence
Chonnam National University has 1 source-backed public claim for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Gwangju, South Korea
Chonnam National University
Chonnam National University has 4 source-backed AI policy claims from 2 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 4 reviewed claims. Last checked May 21, 2026.
Chonnam National University AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
Chonnam National University has 4 source-backed AI policy claims from 2 official source attributions, including 4 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 21, 2026. Discovery context: Chonnam National University is listed as QS 2026 rank 901-950.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists Chonnam National University as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 21, 2026 and last changed on May 21, 2026. The record contains 4 source-backed claims, including 4 reviewed claims, from 2 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/chonnam-national-university.json. The entity-level confidence is 92%. 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 Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy 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.
- 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
Chonnam National University has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
Chonnam National University has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.
Exams
Chonnam National University has 3 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Chonnam National University has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Academic integrity
Chonnam National University has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
Chonnam National University has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Named AI services
Chonnam National University has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Teaching guidance
Chonnam National University has 2 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
No source-backed public claim about research AI use is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about research use, publication ethics, research data, grants, or human-subjects compliance.
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
4 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Teaching
Chonnam's generative-AI writing assignment guideline tells instructors to state in the syllabus whether generative AI is allowed and, when allowed, to explain scope, misconduct criteria, the ethics pledge, and checklist use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Instructors should disclose AI allowance and policy in syllabus; if AI is allowed, explain scope and misconduct criteria.
Original evidence
Evidence 1글쓰기 과제 수행 시 생성형 AI 허용 여부를 <수업계획서(syllabus)>에 명시하고, 학습자에게 명확히 안내하여 주십시오. 생성형 AI의 활용을 허용하는 경우, 활용 가능 범위와 부정행위 기준, 글쓰기 과제 윤리 준수 서약서 작성 및 체크리스트 활용법 등을 구체적으로 설명하여 주십시오.
Localized display only
For writing assignments, instructors are told to specify in the syllabus whether generative AI is allowed and clearly inform learners. If allowed, the guideline says to explain permitted scope, misconduct criteria, the ethics pledge, and checklist use.
Academic Integrity
Chonnam's generative-AI writing assignment guideline identifies improper AI uses that can constitute misconduct, including submitting copied AI output without attribution, patchworking AI output without attribution, using AI to create or spread false information or experiences, infringing copyright or intellectual property, and using AI in a class where it is fully prohibited.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Improper AI use examples: copied output without attribution, unattributed patchworking, false information/experience, copyright/IP infringement, use in fully prohibited classes.
Original evidence
Evidence 1다음은 생성형 AI를 부적절하게 사용한 경우로, 부정행위에 해당합니다. ① 생성형 AI 산출물을 복사하여 과제에 그대로 붙인 채 출처를 표기하지 않는 행위 ② 생성형 AI 산출물의 출처를 표기하지 않은 채 짜깁기하는 행위 ③ 생성형 AI를 활용하여 거짓 정보, 거짓 경험을 작성하거나 유포하는 행위 ④ 생성형 AI를 활용하여 타인의 저작권, 지식재산권을 불법적으로 침해하는 행위 ⑤ 생성형 AI 사용이 전면 금지된 수업에서 생성형 AI를 사용한 행위
Localized display only
The guideline lists improper uses that count as misconduct, including copying AI output into an assignment without attribution, patchworking AI output without attribution, creating or spreading false information or experiences with AI, infringing copyright or intellectual property, and using AI in a class where AI is fully prohibited.
Ai Tool Treatment
Chonnam National University announced that it would provide eight generative AI services free of charge to all faculty, staff, and enrolled students.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Free access announced for ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Grok, Llama, Mistral, and Qwen for faculty/staff and students.
Original evidence
Evidence 114일 전남대에 따르면 대학은 글로컬대학30 핵심 전략에 따라 전 교직원과 재학생에게 생성형 AI 8종을 15일부터 무료 제공한다. 무료 개방·제공하는 생성형 AI 프로그램은 ▲ChatGPT ▲Gemini ▲Perplexity ▲Claude ▲Grok ▲Llama ▲Mistral ▲Qwen 등 총 8종이다.
Localized display only
According to Chonnam, under its Glocal University 30 strategy it would provide eight generative AI services free from the 15th to all faculty/staff and enrolled students: ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Grok, Llama, Mistral, and Qwen.
Privacy
Chonnam's generative-AI writing assignment guideline cautions learners that information entered into generative AI may be stored on servers and used to improve performance, so they should be careful about security and information leakage.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Learners should consider security and information leakage because generative-AI inputs may be stored and used for model/service improvement.
Original evidence
Evidence 1생성형 AI를 활용한다면, 보안·정보 유출 등을 주의하십시오. 생성형 AI에 입력하는 정보는 서버에 저장되고 성능 개선을 위한 자료로 활용 가능하므로 주의하십시오.
Localized display only
The guideline tells learners to be careful about security and information leakage when using generative AI, noting that information entered into generative AI may be stored on servers and used for performance improvement.
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
2 source attribution
[생성형 AI 무료제공] 'AI 대전환' 전남대, 학내 구성원에 생성형 AI 무료제공 안내
mech.jnu.ac.kr
생성형 AI를 활용한 글쓰기 과제 가이드라인 [제1판] 2025. 9.
bte.jnu.ac.kr
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.