Policy presence
Stockholm University has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Stockholm, Sweden
Stockholm University
Stockholm University is listed as QS 2026 rank =147. Stockholm University 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
Stockholm University is listed as QS 2026 rank =147. Stockholm University 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 Stockholm University as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 14, 2026 and last changed on May 14, 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/stockholm-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 Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
- 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
No source-backed public claim about AI disclosure or acknowledgement is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about disclosing, acknowledging, citing, or declaring AI use.
Coursework
Stockholm University has 1 source-backed public claim for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
Stockholm University has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Stockholm University has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Stockholm University has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
Stockholm University has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: required.
Named AI services
Stockholm University has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Stockholm University has 1 source-backed public claim 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
6 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Academic Integrity
Stockholm University's central chatbot guidance says suspected unauthorized AI-chatbot use in an examination should be investigated and, if there is well-founded suspicion of cheating, reported in the same way as other cheating cases.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unauthorized_ai_exam_use_reported_as_cheating_when_well_founded
Original evidence
Evidence 1If it is suspected that a student has used an AI chatbot in an unauthorized way in connection with an examination, the offense must be investigated, and, if there is a well-founded suspicion of cheating, reported in the same way as in other cases of cheating.
Privacy
Stockholm University's AI resources page says employees signed in to Microsoft 365 with a university account have data protection for Copilot, but it also says information at confidentiality level 3 or 4 should not be entered into Copilot.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: copilot_data_protection_with_confidentiality_limits
Original evidence
Evidence 1As long as you are signed in to Microsoft 365 with your university account, data protection for Copilot is enabled and nothing you enter into the chat is used to train the model Copilot is based on. However, this does not mean you are allowed to enter information with confidentiality level 3 or 4 into Copilot.
Teaching
Stockholm University's central chatbot guidance recommends that teachers and examiners decide what AI-chatbot use is allowed or impermissible, noting that this may differ from course to course.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: teachers_examiners_decide_course_specific_ai_use
Original evidence
Evidence 1Stockholm University therefore recommends that teachers/examiners need to decide which type of use is allowed, and which is considered impermissible, which may differ from course to course.
Academic Integrity
Stockholm Business School says use of generative AI in examinations or mandatory assignments is prohibited unless explicitly allowed in the study guide or examination instructions.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: sbs_generai_prohibited_unless_explicitly_allowed
Original evidence
Evidence 1Any use of generative AI (e.g. ChatGPT) during examinations or mandatory assignments, beyond what is explicitly allowed in the study guide or examination instructions, is prohibited. A student who uses generative AI in their work or writing in any way not explicitly permitted may be suspected of attempting to deceive.
Academic Integrity
DSV's AI policy authorizes students enrolled at DSV to use AI tools for learning support and exam preparation, while requiring proper references and a description when AI-generated text, models, or code are used in submissions.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: dsv_ai_use_allowed_with_reference_and_use_description
Original evidence
Evidence 1Students are authorized to utilize AI tools to enhance their understanding of scientific knowledge. This includes employing AI tools to support their learning, improve communication, and enhance their writing skills. It is prohibited for students to claim ownership of AI tool-generated texts, models, or code without proper references to the utilized AI tools. Any submission must include a description of how these AI tools were employed.
Ai Tool Treatment
Stockholm University's AI resources page says the university has chosen not to implement a mandatory policy for AI tools and that usual regulations and employee judgment apply.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: no_mandatory_ai_tools_policy_for_employees
Original evidence
Evidence 1Stockholm University has chosen not to implement a mandatory policy for the use of AI tools, partly due to the very rapid development, and partly because different disciplines have widely varying needs and conditions. Our usual regulations and the employee's judgment apply, just as for other digital tools.
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
AI recourses at Stockholm University
medarbetare.su.se
DSV's AI policy
su.se
During your studies
su.se
Guidelines on using AI-powered chatbots in education and research
medarbetare.su.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.