University AI Policy Tracker
APIGitHub
Language
ENZHFRPL

São Paulo, Brazil

Universidade de São Paulo

Last checkedMay 14, 2026Last changedMay 14, 2026Review: Agent reviewedConfidence86%
Public JSONChange logMonthly reportCitation rulesDataset accessAnalysis JSONSubmit correction
Public JSONCitation rules
More tools

Record status

Policy statusReviewed evidence-backed recordReview: Agent reviewedClaim coverage4 reviewedEvidence-backed claims4Reviewed4Candidate0Official sources4Source languagept-BRPublic JSON/api/public/v1/universities/universidade-de-sao-paulo.json

Policy profile

Analysis JSONAnalysis review
Coverage score100/100Coverage labelbroad public coverageReview: Machine candidateAnalysis confidence70%

Policy presence

Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.

UnclearMachine candidateConfidence68%Evidence1Sources1
Claim claim-usp-iea-proposals-to-rectory

AI disclosure

Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.

RecommendedMachine candidateConfidence73%Evidence1Sources1
Claim claim-usp-fdusp-governance-measures

Privacy and data entry

Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: recommended.

RecommendedMachine candidateConfidence73%Evidence1Sources1
Claim claim-usp-fdusp-governance-measures

Approved tools

Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: allowed.

AllowedMachine candidateConfidence66%Evidence1Sources1
Claim claim-usp-abcd-similarity-tools

Research guidance

Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.

RecommendedMachine candidateConfidence68%Evidence1Sources1
Claim claim-usp-iea-proposals-to-rectory

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.

Not MentionedMachine candidateConfidence0%Evidence0Sources0

AI tools

Tools directory
Derived tool records0

No tool-level evidence is published for this record yet. Broad AI tool mentions are not expanded into named tool conclusions.

Evidence-backed claims

4 reviewed evidence-backed public claim

Teaching

A FDUSP generative AI governance report recommends mitigation measures including training and disclosure, review of generated content, transparency about use, and avoiding prompts containing personal data.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence86%

Normalized value: FDUSP report recommends training/disclosure, review, transparency, and avoiding personal data in prompts.

Last checked
May 14, 2026
Last changed
May 14, 2026

Original evidence

Evidence 1
A forma de mitigar tais riscos está na adoção de medidas de governança, por meio de (i) treinamento e divulgação para esclarecimento quanto aos usos adequados e inadequados da ferramenta; (ii) revisão do conteúdo gerado, de forma a garantir sua acurácia e mitigar a presença de vieses discriminatórios; (iii) transparência em seu uso; e (iv) evitar requisições que contenham dados pessoais

Localized display only

The report frames mitigation as governance measures: training/disclosure, review of generated content, transparency about use, and avoiding prompts with personal data.

Source language
pt-BR
Snapshot hash
c57e715622df09a69f52d7588b24411ccb7c4d71f91a4db50642b2f39e8f27d4
Retrieved
May 14, 2026
Evidence locator
Executive summary

Academic Integrity

The FDUSP report says lack of transparency about student use of generative AI in faculty academic work points to a need for faculty actions promoting awareness and rules or guidelines for transparent and ethical use.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence84%

Normalized value: FDUSP report identifies transparency concerns and need for faculty actions/rules.

Last checked
May 14, 2026
Last changed
May 14, 2026

Original evidence

Evidence 1
Essa falta de transparência é preocupante, por dificultar processos internos de revisão e correção dos trabalhos e atividades acadêmicas. Esse fato, aliado a dúvidas quanto à legitimidade e à legalidade do uso, apontam para a necessidade de ações pela faculdade para promover a conscientização e a criação de regras e diretrizes que promovam a transparência e o uso ético das IAGs.

Localized display only

The report says transparency gaps in faculty academic work create a need for faculty actions, awareness, and rules or guidelines for transparent and ethical IAG use.

Source language
pt-BR
Snapshot hash
c57e715622df09a69f52d7588b24411ccb7c4d71f91a4db50642b2f39e8f27d4
Retrieved
May 14, 2026
Evidence locator
Executive summary

Source Status

An IEA-USP report says a USP seminar initiated debates for proposals to be sent to the USP Rector's Office so it could define guidelines and norms for appropriate and ethical use of tools such as ChatGPT in teaching and research.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence80%

Normalized value: IEA-USP reports proposal process, not enacted policy.

Last checked
May 14, 2026
Last changed
May 14, 2026

Original evidence

Evidence 1
O seminário deu início a uma série de debates para a elaboração de propostas a serem encaminhadas à Reitoria da USP, para que esta defina um conjunto de diretrizes e normas que asseguram o uso adequado e ético de ferramentas como ChatGPT no ensino e na pesquisa.

Localized display only

IEA-USP says the seminar began debates for proposals to the USP Rector's Office about guidelines and norms for appropriate and ethical use of ChatGPT-like tools.

Source language
pt-BR
Snapshot hash
fde9ec3256b26d3fa533e135addde7f6790662fa4f643f27fa30f97a65d75f08
Retrieved
May 14, 2026
Evidence locator
Article body, seminar overview

Ai Tool Treatment

An ABCD-USP article says USP's direction includes ethics and integrity formation, writing development, and broader use of plagiarism/similarity platforms such as Turnitin and Crossref Similarity Check iThenticate, which the article says USP has subscribed to since 2016 through ABCD-USP.

Review: Agent reviewedConfidence78%

Normalized value: ABCD-USP describes Turnitin and iThenticate availability/subscription context.

Last checked
May 14, 2026
Last changed
May 14, 2026

Original evidence

Evidence 1
O caminho na Universidade de São Paulo já tem uma direção e ela passa pela formação dos estudantes com ênfase na ética e na integridade, investimento no aprimoramento da escrita e redação científica e acadêmica, ampliação do uso de plataformas de prevenção de plágio como o Turnitin por docentes em conjunto com as bibliotecas... Ambas as ferramentas são assinadas pela USP desde 2016 por meio da Agência de Bibliotecas e Coleções Digitais (ABCD-USP).

Localized display only

ABCD-USP describes an ethics/integrity and writing-development direction and says USP subscribes to Turnitin and iThenticate through ABCD-USP.

Source language
pt-BR
Snapshot hash
0d1321dfe15666b97445d1f13b9cc9194659a463f48d657d1b4802e4430a611f
Retrieved
May 14, 2026
Evidence locator
Article body near closing section

Candidate claims

0 machine or needs-review claim

Official sources

4 source attribution

Change log

Last checkedMay 14, 2026Last changedMay 14, 2026Open change log

Corrections

Open contribution pathsReview workflow
Back to universities