Policy presence
University of Copenhagen has 3 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Copenhagen, Denmark
University of Copenhagen
University of Copenhagen is listed as QS 2026 rank 101. University of Copenhagen has 5 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
University of Copenhagen is listed as QS 2026 rank 101. University of Copenhagen has 5 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 University of Copenhagen as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 14, 2026 and last changed on May 14, 2026. The record contains 5 source-backed claims, including 5 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/university-of-copenhagen.json. The entity-level confidence is 92%. 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 Research claims.
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot.
- 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
University of Copenhagen has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Copenhagen has 1 source-backed public claim for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
University of Copenhagen has 1 source-backed public claim for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.
Privacy and data entry
University of Copenhagen has 3 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Copenhagen has 1 source-backed public claim for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Approved tools
University of Copenhagen has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Copenhagen has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
No source-backed public claim about teaching guidance is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about instructor, classroom, assessment-design, or syllabus guidance.
Research guidance
University of Copenhagen has 3 source-backed public claims for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Security and procurement
University of Copenhagen has 3 source-backed public claims for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
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
Research
University of Copenhagen PhD guidance says AI-assisted technologies used in a thesis must be clearly disclosed and described, cannot be listed as an author, and leave the PhD student responsible for accuracy, integrity, and originality.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: phd_thesis_ai_use_disclosed_described_not_author_student_responsible
Original evidence
Evidence 1if you use AI-assisted technologies in your thesis it must be clearly disclosed, and the use must be described. The AI-assisted technology cannot be listed as an author. You are therefore solely responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work.
Research
University of Copenhagen authorship guidelines say AI-assisted technologies used in scholarly work must be clearly stated and declared; chatbots cannot be listed as co-authors, and researchers using AI-assisted technologies must be able to account for the results.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: scholarly_publications_ai_use_declared_chatbots_not_coauthors_researchers_account_for_results
Original evidence
Evidence 1If AI-assisted technologies such as large language models, chatbots or image creating programs have been used in the scholarly work, this must be clearly stated and declared in the publication. Chatbots and the like cannot be listed as co-authors of scholarly work; researchers who use AI-assisted technologies in their work must be able to account for the results.
Privacy
University of Copenhagen employee guidance says employees may not enter personal data or confidential or copyrighted information into generative AI tools and should use only the licensed Copilot Enterprise tool for UCPH work.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: employees_no_personal_confidential_copyrighted_data_use_licensed_copilot_enterprise
Original evidence
Evidence 1As an employee at UCPH, you can now read the first guidelines on how you are allowed to use generative AI tools in your work at the University. You may not enter personal data. You may not enter confidential or copyrighted information. Only use Copilot Enterprise for which UCPH has bought a license.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Copenhagen guidance says the Copilot Enterprise-only guideline means employees must avoid using ChatGPT or other non-licensed generative AI in their work for UCPH.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: employees_avoid_chatgpt_and_nonlicensed_genai_for_ucph_work
Original evidence
Evidence 1The guideline to only use Copilot Enterprise means that, as an employee, you must avoid using ChatGPT or other non-licensed generative AI in your work for UCPH.
Security Review
The University of Copenhagen researcher tools page says staff and students may use Microsoft Copilot, and that work needing a generative AI tool should primarily use Microsoft Copilot Enterprise because it is security-approved and licensed by the university.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: researcher_tools_copilot_enterprise_primary_security_approved_licensed
Original evidence
Evidence 1Copilot, developed by Microsoft, is licensed by University of Copenhagen, allowing both staff and students to use it. If you need a generative AI tool for your work, you should primarily use Microsoft Copilot Enterprise, which is security-approved and licensed by University of Copenhagen.
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
Guideline on the use of AI-assisted technologies for PhD theses
phd.ku.dk
Three guidelines and a new tool for using AI
pkunet-shared.ku.dk
Tools for Researchers
kub.ku.dk
University of Copenhagen guidelines on authorship of scholarly publications
praksisudvalget.ku.dk
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.