Policy presence
Deakin University has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Melbourne, Australia
Deakin University
Deakin University is listed as QS 2026 rank =207. Deakin University has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
Deakin University is listed as QS 2026 rank =207. Deakin University has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 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 Deakin University 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 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/deakin-university.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 Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching 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
Deakin University has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
Deakin University has 4 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
Deakin University has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.
Privacy and data entry
Deakin University has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Deakin University has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
Deakin University has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
Deakin University has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Deakin University has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
Deakin University has 3 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Security and procurement
Deakin University has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
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
Privacy
Deakin research guidance says commercial genAI platforms may store data externally and researchers should use only non-sensitive, non-confidential content suitable for public or external use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: external AI tools restricted to non-sensitive, non-confidential research content
Original evidence
Evidence 1Commercial generative AI platforms like ChatGPT, Bing and others store data externally. Once entered, your information may be retained, reused or accessed beyond your control, even if the platform offers options to delete or restrict access. To minimise risk, use only non-sensitive, non-confidential content that is suitable for public or external use.
Localized display only
Deakin warns that commercial genAI platforms can store data externally and tells researchers to use only non-sensitive, non-confidential content suitable for public or external use.
Ai Tool Treatment
Deakin identifies a set of approved genAI and digital learning tools for learning, including Deakin GEM, Studiosity+, Microsoft Copilot for web, and FeedbackFruits.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: approved learning tools: Deakin GEM, Studiosity+, Microsoft Copilot for web, FeedbackFruits
Original evidence
Evidence 1Deakin provides a set of endorsed generative AI (genAI) and digital learning tools to support teaching and learning in ways that are safe, ethical, and educationally sound. These tools have been formally evaluated and approved to align with Deakin's academic values, privacy and security obligations, and learning and teaching goals.
Localized display only
Deakin lists endorsed genAI and digital learning tools that it says have been formally evaluated and approved for learning contexts.
Research
Deakin research guidance says HDR thesis use of generative AI is limited to copyediting and proofreading, with generated images allowed only where part of an approved methodology and fully disclosed.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: HDR thesis AI use limited to copyediting/proofreading except approved disclosed methodology for image generation
Original evidence
Evidence 1Generative AI may be used for copyediting and proofreading thesis text only. Refer to the Institute for Professional Editors guidelines for what qualifies as copyediting and proofreading support. Using generative AI to create or manipulate images is not permitted in your thesis, unless image generation is part of your approved research methodology and fully disclosed.
Localized display only
For HDR thesis writing, Deakin limits generative AI to copyediting and proofreading, with image generation allowed only when it is part of approved methodology and disclosed.
Academic Integrity
Deakin guidance says students should acknowledge genAI use where it contributed to developing assessment work and should include tool, access date, prompts, output, and where it was used.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: acknowledge genAI use in assessment development
Original evidence
Evidence 1Where you have used generative AI (genAI) in developing your assessment (for example, in the development of ideas, problem solving, data analysis, significant writing feedback) you should acknowledge your use of genAI. It is essential that you provide details about where and how you have used it.
Localized display only
Deakin says students should acknowledge genAI use in assessment development and explain where and how it was used.
Academic Integrity
Deakin student guidance says genAI may be used as a starting point for some study tasks, but not to write the final assessment or do the work being assessed.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: students may use genAI supportively but remain responsible for own assessment work
Original evidence
Evidence 1You might use genAI as a starting point for writing (for example, a writing template) but never to write your final assessment. Never use genAI to do the work that you are being assessed on. It is your responsibility to write and create your own assessments.
Localized display only
Deakin tells students genAI can be a starting point for writing support, but not a way to write the final assessment or complete the assessed work.
Teaching
Deakin has institution-level genAI principles and a genAI Steering Group coordinating guidance across learning and teaching, research, enterprise use, and digital services.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: institutional genAI principles and steering group
Original evidence
Evidence 1Deakin's genAI Steering Group was established in 2023 to: oversee the uptake of genAI tools and associated activity; coordinate institutional guidelines for the use of genAI, with cross-reference to specific guidance for learning and teaching, research and enterprise use; consolidate advice from relevant teams in the Academic and Research and Innovation Portfolios and Digital Services on current practice, emerging issues and technologies.
Localized display only
Deakin says its genAI Steering Group coordinates institutional guidelines and connects learning and teaching, research, enterprise, and digital-services advice.
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
Acknowledging your use
deakin.edu.au
Approved genAI tools for learning
deakin.edu.au
Generative artificial intelligence
deakin.edu.au
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
deakin.edu.au
Using genAI for study and assessments
deakin.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.