Policy presence
Universität Jena has 4 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Jena, Germany
Universität Jena
Universität Jena has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 2 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 5 reviewed claims. Last checked May 17, 2026.
Universität Jena AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
Universität Jena has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 2 official source attributions, including 5 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 17, 2026. Discovery context: Universität Jena is listed as QS 2026 rank =575.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists Universität Jena as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 17, 2026 and last changed on May 17, 2026. The record contains 5 source-backed claims, including 5 reviewed claims, from 2 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/universitat-jena.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 Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT.
- 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
Universität Jena has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
Universität Jena has 1 source-backed public claim for coursework; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Exams
Universität Jena has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Universität Jena has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Academic integrity
Universität Jena has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: required.
Approved tools
Universität Jena has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Named AI services
Universität Jena has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Universität Jena has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
Universität Jena has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
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
Universität Jena's exam-law page states that if AI is used in examinations, the examiner must expressly allow AI as an aid and students must state the use of tools such as ChatGPT for the assessment.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Exam AI use requires express examiner permission and disclosure by students.
Original evidence
Evidence 1In diesem Fall muss die Prüferin bzw. Prüfer die KI ausdrücklich als Hilfsmittel zulassen. Die Studierenden müssen dann die Nutzung von z.B. ChatGPT für die Prüfungsleistung angeben.
Localized display only
The examiner must expressly allow AI as an aid; students must then indicate use of tools such as ChatGPT for the assessment.
Academic Integrity
For study and teaching contexts, Universität Jena guidance says AI use in scientific work or examinations may be used only as a supporting aid and only after consultation with the examiner.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: AI in scientific work or exams is limited to supportive use after consultation with the examiner.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Ein KI-Einsatz darf daher in diesem Kontext nur als unterstützendes Hilfsmittel eingesetzt werden und nur nach Absprache mit dem Prüfenden.
Localized display only
In this context, AI may be used only as a supporting aid and only after consultation with the examiner.
Privacy
Universität Jena guidance says generative AI tools must not be used as the basis or final decision for person-related decisions, including student examination assessments and researcher grant assessments.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: No AI basis or final decision for person-related decisions.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Generative KI-Tools dürfen nicht als Grundlage oder gar Letztentscheidung für personenbezogene Entscheidungen herangezogen werden (vgl. Art. 22 Datenschutz-Grundverordnung).
Localized display only
Generative AI tools may not be used as the basis or final decision for person-related decisions.
Academic Integrity
In its written-work self-declaration guidance, Universität Jena's exam-law page states that where there is no AI release declaration, AI use is impermissible by inference from the listed release options.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: The exam-law page links AI-use permissibility to the written-work release-declaration options.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Gibt es keine Freigabeerklärung, ist jegliche Nutzung von KI (im Rückschluss von den Freigabemöglichkeiten) unzulässig.
Localized display only
If there is no release declaration, any AI use is impermissible by inference from the release options.
Ai Tool Treatment
Universität Jena guidance says generative AI use should be possible where it can be used beneficially and without risks, with users expected to follow responsible, reflective, and legally compliant use guidance.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Generative AI use may be possible where beneficial and low-risk, subject to responsible/legal-use guidance.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Dort wo generative KI gewinnbringend und ohne Risiken angewendet werden kann, soll eine Nutzung daher möglich sein.
Localized display only
Where generative AI can be used beneficially and without risks, use should be possible.
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
2 source attribution
Informationen zum Prüfungsrecht
uni-jena.de
Umgang mit generativen KI-Tools an der Universität Jena
uni-jena.de
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.