Policy presence
Technological University Dublin has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Dublin, Ireland
Technological University Dublin has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
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.
Technological University Dublin has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Technological University Dublin has 3 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Technological University Dublin has 3 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Technological University Dublin has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Technological University Dublin has 4 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Technological University Dublin has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Technological University Dublin has 2 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Technological University Dublin has 3 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Technological University Dublin has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
No tool-level evidence is published for this record yet. Broad AI tool mentions are not expanded into named tool conclusions.
7 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Research
Normalized value: AI systems and generative models cannot be co-authors
Original evidence
Evidence 1In line with the University’s Authorship and Publication policy, artificial intelligence systems and/or generative models cannot be included as co-authors on any research, innovation or scholarly output.
Ai Tool Treatment
Normalized value: Student GenAI use requires advance lecturer approval for assessments
Original evidence
Evidence 1To support academic integrity, GenAI can only be used by students in ways that are approved in advance by their lecturer. Failure to adhere to these guidelines or the inappropriate use of AI, as determined by the relevant Faculty, may result in disciplinary action as it is a breach of academic integrity.
Teaching
Normalized value: AIAS recommended for assessment design and student communication
Original evidence
Evidence 1TU Dublin recommends the use of the Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale in the design of assessments and for communication with students about assessments.
Research
Normalized value: Research GenAI use must meet law/data protection obligations and user responsibility
Original evidence
Evidence 1Use of generative AI systems/tools must follow applicable institutional, national, EU and international laws, regulations and data protection standards. The user of generative AI systems/tools is wholly responsible for ensuring the veracity, accuracy and/or creative merit of the output generated by the model, and for assessing the potential for falsification, fabrication and plagiarism due to the use of the system.
Privacy
Normalized value: Personal data restricted in unsupported or unapproved GenAI systems
Original evidence
Evidence 1Personal data should not be entered into GenAI systems that are not supported/approved by the University. No personal data should be collected, stored or uploaded to a GenAI system, without permission/consent, including images or photographs.
Academic Integrity
Normalized value: AI-created work submitted as own work can be academic misconduct
Original evidence
Evidence 1Submitting work as your own for assessment, which has, in fact, been done in whole or in part by someone else or submitting work which has been created artificially, e.g., by a machine or through artificial intelligence.
Security Review
Normalized value: Sensitive research contexts limited to non-retaining or University-controlled GenAI systems
Original evidence
Evidence 1While a broad range of systems and tools are available, only the following should be used in the context of research activities where the information is sensitive, confidential or where there are/may be intellectual property issues, including during peer review practices: Systems which by default do not retain data or which permit user to disable data retention. Systems where the data is created and saved on closed/bespoke University hardware platforms.
0 machine or needs-review claim
4 source attribution
tudublin.ie
tudublin.ie
tudublin.ie
tudublin.ie