Policy presence
Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
São Paulo, Brazil
Universidade de São Paulo
Universidade de São Paulo is listed as QS 2026 rank 108. Universidade de São Paulo has 4 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
Universidade de São Paulo is listed as QS 2026 rank 108. Universidade de São Paulo has 4 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 Universidade de São Paulo as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 14, 2026 and last changed on May 14, 2026. The record contains 4 source-backed claims, including 4 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/universidade-de-sao-paulo.json. The entity-level confidence is 86%. 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 Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Source status claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution 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
Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
Universidade de São Paulo has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Exams
Universidade de São Paulo has 3 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Privacy and data entry
Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Academic integrity
Universidade de São Paulo has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
Universidade de São Paulo has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: allowed.
Named AI services
Universidade de São Paulo has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Teaching guidance
Universidade de São Paulo has 3 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
Universidade de São Paulo 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
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 reviewed
Normalized value: FDUSP report recommends training/disclosure, review, transparency, and avoiding personal data in prompts.
Original evidence
Evidence 1A 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.
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 reviewed
Normalized value: FDUSP report identifies transparency concerns and need for faculty actions/rules.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Essa 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 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 reviewed
Normalized value: IEA-USP reports proposal process, not enacted policy.
Original evidence
Evidence 1O 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.
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 reviewed
Normalized value: ABCD-USP describes Turnitin and iThenticate availability/subscription context.
Original evidence
Evidence 1O 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.
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
Governança de Inteligência Artificial Generativa nas Universidades
direito.usp.br
O efeito ChatGPT baseado em Inteligência Artificial e o ensino nas Universidades
abcd.usp.br
Os desafios do ChatGPT ao ensino e à pesquisa
iea.usp.br
Relatório traz procedimentos de governança para uso de Inteligência Artificial para fins acadêmicos e educacionais
direito.usp.br
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.