Policy presence
University of Groningen has 3 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Groningen, Netherlands
University of Groningen
University of Groningen is listed as QS 2026 rank =147. University of Groningen has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 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 Groningen is listed as QS 2026 rank =147. University of Groningen has 6 source-backed AI policy claim records from 5 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 Groningen as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 15, 2026 and last changed on May 15, 2026. The record contains 6 source-backed claims, including 6 reviewed claims, from 5 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-groningen.json. The entity-level confidence is 96%. 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 Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- No specific AI service name is highlighted by the current public claim text.
- Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related 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 Groningen has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Groningen has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: required.
Exams
University of Groningen has 3 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: required.
Privacy and data entry
University of Groningen has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Groningen has 1 source-backed public claim for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.
Approved tools
University of Groningen has 2 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Groningen has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
University of Groningen has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Groningen has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Security and procurement
University of Groningen has 1 source-backed public claim 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
6 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Privacy
University of Groningen's AI policy and regulations page tells UG users not to share personal or organizational details with AI systems, to keep human intervention for decisions about other people, and to follow GDPR and related laws.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: do not share personal or organizational details; keep human intervention; follow GDPR
Original evidence
Evidence 1Do not share any personal or organizational details while using AI systems. Do not let AI make decisions about other people without human intervention.
Localized display only
UG's AI policy and regulations page warns against sharing personal or organizational details and against automated decisions about other people.
Teaching
University of Groningen's teaching AI policy says AI tools may be used as aids, GenAI use beyond that must be mentioned, and faculties or courses may add extra rules.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: AI aids allowed; GenAI use must be cited; extra faculty/course rules may apply
Original evidence
Evidence 1AI tools may be used as aids. When GenAI functionalities are used, this should always be mentioned/referred to. Additional rules may apply at the level of your faculty, degree programme, and course unit.
Localized display only
UG allows AI tools as aids, requires GenAI use to be mentioned, and notes that extra faculty or course rules may apply.
Academic Integrity
UG guidance says unauthorized student AI use that hinders assessment can be fraud, and AI detection scores do not prove cheating.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unauthorized student AI use can be fraud; detection scores are not proof
Original evidence
Evidence 1The unauthorized use of AI tools by students that hinders the assessment of a learning goal can be considered fraud and a breach of academic integrity. Cheating scores that are generated by AI detection tools may not be used to prove that a student has cheated.
Localized display only
UG guidance treats unauthorized student AI use that harms assessment as possible fraud and rejects AI-detection scores as proof.
Ai Tool Treatment
UG presents Le Chat as a secure and reliable AI assistant and says the pilot is meant to help people use AI in a safe experimental environment.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Le Chat is UG secure AI assistant pilot
Original evidence
Evidence 1Le Chat (Mistral AI) is a secure and reliable AI assistant for the UG that can help with daily tasks. The pilot offers the opportunity to familiarize yourself with AI within a safe and experimental environment.
Localized display only
UG describes Le Chat as a secure, reliable assistant and frames the rollout as a pilot in a safe experimental setting.
Privacy
UG says the Le Chat Enterprise licence is only active on @rug.nl accounts, other external AI tools may only process public information, and medium-confidentiality use requires disabling several tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Le Chat enterprise only on @rug.nl; external tools public info only; medium confidentiality needs tool limits
Original evidence
Evidence 1This licence is only active on the @rug.nl account. Other External AI tools may only be used for processing public information. Be cautious at medium confidentiality level: Mistral can be used, provided that code interpreter, image generation, web search, and Flash Answers are disabled.
Localized display only
UG says the Le Chat enterprise licence is tied to @rug.nl accounts and that other external AI tools are limited to public information.
Research
UG says there are no specific AI guidelines for research, but the general AI guidelines still apply.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: no specific research guidelines; general guidelines apply
Original evidence
Evidence 1There are no specific guidelines for AI in research. Of course, the general guidelines do apply.
Localized display only
UG says it has no specific AI research guidance, but the general AI guidelines still apply.
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
5 source attribution
Available Tools and Software
rug.nl
Dealing with fraud and risks
edusupport.rug.nl
FAQ - The Do's and Don'ts in Mistral-Le Chat
rug.nl
Safe and Responsible use of AI
rug.nl
UG basic rules for the use of AI in teaching
rug.nl
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.