Policy presence
University of Kentucky has 4 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Lexington, United States
University of Kentucky
Record status
Review: Agent reviewed
Policy profile
Review: Machine candidate
AI disclosure
University of Kentucky has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Kentucky has 2 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Kentucky has 2 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Kentucky has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Kentucky has 1 source-backed public claim for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Approved tools
University of Kentucky has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Kentucky has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
University of Kentucky has 2 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Kentucky has 2 source-backed public claims 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.
AI tools
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
Privacy
UK ADVANCE research guidance says data privacy review is needed before Protected Data is entered into a generative AI tool; it also says not to put PHI into such tools unless UKHC InfoSec has confirmed HIPAA compliance and PHI support, and not to place other non-public or proprietary research data into open-source AI without UK ITS GRC approval.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: protected_data_privacy_review_phi_and_nonpublic_research_data_restrictions
Original evidence
Evidence 1Data privacy review is needed before any Protected Data (AR 10.7) is entered into a generative AI tool. Unless the UKHC InfoSec Data Sharing Committee has confirmed the AI tool is HIPAA compliant and supports PHI input, do not put research data containing PHI into a generative AI tool or other software.
Localized display only
UK ADVANCE requires data privacy review before Protected Data enters a generative AI tool and restricts PHI input unless compliance/support is confirmed.
Research
UK ADVANCE research guidance says generative AI tools may enhance research when used responsibly, generated content should be verified or validated, generative AI cannot be designated as an author, and researchers remain responsible for content and accuracy.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: responsible_research_use_verification_no_ai_authorship_human_accountability
Original evidence
Evidence 1When using a generative AI tool, it is best practice to verify or validate all generated content using additional factors and reliable resources. Generative AI cannot be designated authorship as it cannot be held accountable.
Localized display only
UK ADVANCE advises validating generated research content and does not allow generative AI to be treated as accountable authorship.
Teaching
UK ADVANCE provides instructional generative AI guidance that includes creating and clearly communicating course policies, responding to misuse, and designing learning experiences aligned with those policies.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: instructional_guidance_course_policy_recommended
Original evidence
Evidence 1UK ADVANCE provides the following guidance and recommendations: Understanding Capabilities and Risks; Developing Course Policies: Creating and clearly communicating course policies regarding the use of generative AI; Responding to Misuse; Designing Aligned Learning Experiences.
Localized display only
UK ADVANCE recommends understanding risks, creating and communicating course AI policies, responding to misuse, and aligning learning experiences.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Kentucky CELT guidance frames student generative AI use as a course-level instructor decision and recommends communicating allowed uses, tool restrictions, citation or acknowledgement expectations, and alternatives where privacy concerns exist.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: course_level_instructor_discretion_with_citation_privacy_guidance
Original evidence
Evidence 1It is up to the instructor to decide whether student use of generative AI (GenAI) is appropriate for their courses and to what extent. Instructors might also consider an assignment-by-assignment approach to identifying when generative AI is allowed.
Localized display only
CELT frames student GenAI use as an instructor decision, including assignment-by-assignment communication of allowed uses.
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Official sources
3 source attribution
AI Course Policy Examples | CELT
celt.uky.edu
Faculty Guidelines | ADVANCE Team
advance.uky.edu
UK ADVANCE Recommendations on the Use of Generative AI in Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity
advance.uky.edu