Policy presence
Edith Cowan University has 3 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Joondalup, Australia
Edith Cowan University
Edith Cowan University is listed as QS 2026 rank =487. Edith Cowan University has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
Edith Cowan University is listed as QS 2026 rank =487. Edith Cowan University has 5 source-backed AI policy claim records from 6 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 Edith Cowan University as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 16, 2026 and last changed on May 16, 2026. The record contains 5 source-backed claims, including 5 reviewed claims, from 6 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/edith-cowan-university.json. The entity-level confidence is 94%. 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 Teaching claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT.
- 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
Edith Cowan University has 3 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
Edith Cowan University has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
Edith Cowan University has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
No source-backed public claim about privacy or data-entry restrictions is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about personal, confidential, sensitive, regulated, or student data entry into AI tools.
Academic integrity
Edith Cowan University has 4 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
Edith Cowan University has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Named AI services
Edith Cowan University has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Teaching guidance
Edith Cowan University has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
Edith Cowan University has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
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
5 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
ECU's academic-misconduct guidance states that plagiarism includes unacknowledged use of a generative artificial intelligence tool such as ChatGPT.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unacknowledged_genai_use_is_plagiarism
Original evidence
Evidence 1Plagiarism is defined as presenting, intentionally or unintentionally, the ideas or work of another person as one's own ideas, or work without appropriate referencing or acknowledgement. Plagiarism is the most common and well-known form of academic misconduct. It also includes unacknowledged use of a generative artificial intelligence tool such as ChatGPT
Academic Integrity
ECU tells students that the same academic-integrity rules that apply to traditional study also apply to generative AI, and that submitting AI-generated work without permission is an academic-integrity breach.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: existing_academic_integrity_rules_apply_to_genai
Original evidence
Evidence 1At ECU, the same rules of academic integrity that apply to traditional study also apply to Generative AI. That means honesty, fairness and doing your own work.
Original evidence
Evidence 2Submitting AI-generated work without permission is an academic integrity breach, just like plagiarism. It's also risky to trust AI to write your content as it may hallucinate information or sources.
Academic Integrity
ECU Library guidance says students who use generative AI as a study or research tool must acknowledge that use in their assessment, and that not giving credit to GenAI tools counts as plagiarism.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_use_must_be_acknowledged
Original evidence
Evidence 1If you use generative AI like a tool to help your study and research process (as discussed in this guide), you must still acknowledge the use you have put it to even though it has not been used to directly create assessment output.
Original evidence
Evidence 2Not giving credit to Gen AI tools counts as plagiarism. If you get caught, you could get anything from a warning letter to losing marks, failing the assignment, or even more serious actions like being suspended.
Ai Tool Treatment
Edith Cowan University has a public Artificial Intelligence Framework intended to empower staff and students to use AI productively and ethically, with ethical principles and responsible-use guidance rather than a standalone prohibition.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: public_ai_framework_productive_ethical_use
Original evidence
Evidence 1The purpose of this framework is to empower and enable staff and students to productively and ethically use AI, in line with ECU's vision to lead the sector in the educational experience, research with impact, and in positive contributions to industry and communities.
Original evidence
Evidence 2Productive use will be primarily supported by practical Guidelines for Responsible Use. They articulate the application of the Ethical Principles to different domains of work, which at this stage are: Learning, Teaching and Student Support; Research and Research Training; Organisational Productivity.
Teaching
ECU provides student-facing generative-AI learning support that covers responsible use, learning, academic integrity, prompt strategies, attribution, drop-ins, and workshops.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: student_genai_learning_support_available
Original evidence
Evidence 1ECU students can access a range of resources on Canvas that offer guidance on using these tools. In alignment with ECU's Ethical Framework, these resources include: advice on how to use gen AI for learning and demonstrating academic integrity; practical prompt strategies for obtaining meaningful feedback; guides for correctly attributing AI-assisted work.
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
6 source attribution
Academic Integrity
intranet.ecu.edu.au
AI at uni: how to use it the right way
intranet.ecu.edu.au
Artificial Intelligence Framework
ecu.edu.au
Avoiding Academic Misconduct
intranet.ecu.edu.au
Generative AI and Copilot: 6. Acknowledgement & Referencing
ecu.au.libguides.com
Generative AI in Learning
intranet.ecu.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.