Policy presence
University of Limerick has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Limerick, Ireland
University of Limerick
University of Limerick is listed as QS 2026 rank =401. University of Limerick 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 Limerick is listed as QS 2026 rank =401. University of Limerick 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 Limerick as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 16, 2026 and last changed on May 16, 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-limerick.json. The entity-level confidence is 97%. 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 Security review claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
- 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
No source-backed public claim about AI disclosure or acknowledgement is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about disclosing, acknowledging, citing, or declaring AI use.
Coursework
University of Limerick has 4 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Limerick has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Limerick has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: required.
Academic integrity
University of Limerick has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
University of Limerick has 2 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: required.
Named AI services
University of Limerick has 1 source-backed public claim for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Teaching guidance
University of Limerick has 1 source-backed public claim for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Limerick has 1 source-backed public claim for research guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Security and procurement
University of Limerick has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: required.
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
Academic Integrity
University of Limerick assessment guidance states that use of AI in an unauthorized manner is a breach of academic integrity, and that use not permitted by the module leader is a breach of academic integrity.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unauthorized_ai_use_breach_academic_integrity
Original evidence
Evidence 1The Academic Integrity Policy and the Procedures for Managing Allegations of Academic Misconduct, available on the UL Policy hub, indicate that it is a breach of academic integrity if AI is used in an unauthorised manner. In other words, it is the responsibility of the module leader/equivalent to decide and communicate the level of acceptable use of AI to students i.e. to determine what is authorised/unauthorised use.
Academic Integrity
University of Limerick guidance says GenAI use in assessment beyond the specifications of the module lead or programme lead is considered academic misconduct and related concerns should be managed under the procedures for academic misconduct allegations.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_beyond_specifications_academic_misconduct
Original evidence
Evidence 1The use of Gen AI in assessment beyond the specifications of the module lead and/or programme lead is considered to be a form of academic misconduct, as described in the Academic Integrity Policy. Concerns relating to the unauthorised use of GenAI should be managed in accordance with the Procedures for Managing Allegations of Academic Misconduct.
Security Review
UL GenAI principles state that any tool used within the university must comply with UL data protection, IT security, and acceptable usage policies, and that cloud tools must be approved through the Cloud Governance process.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: university_tool_use_requires_policy_compliance_cloud_governance
Original evidence
Evidence 1The use of any tool within the University must be compliant with the UL Data Protection Policy, IT Security Policy, and the Acceptable Usage Policy. All tools being used within the University must go through the appropriate approval processes. Tools with a cloud aspect must be approved through the Cloud Governance process.
Ai Tool Treatment
UL student guidance says Microsoft Copilot accessed through UL staff or student accounts is currently the preferred GenAI platform from a security and data integrity standpoint when GenAI is used by staff or students.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: microsoft_copilot_preferred_platform
Original evidence
Evidence 1From a security and data integrity standpoint, if Gen AI is to be used by staff or students, the preferred platform is currently Microsoft Copilot, accessed through UL staff or student accounts. UL maintains a contractual agreement with Microsoft, a distinction not shared with other providers.
Research
UL guidance states that outputs from GenAI tools relied on for essential information, decision-making, or research must be independently verified.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: genai_outputs_must_be_independently_verified
Original evidence
Evidence 1As a result, all outputs from Gen AI tools which we rely on for essential information or which will inform decisions or influence research must be independently verified.
Teaching
University of Limerick guidance says legitimate AI use in academia is a local decision, with module coordinators, programme leads, or Heads of Department setting limits within module or programme design.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: module_programme_level_ai_use_limits
Original evidence
Evidence 1Given the variety of offerings, disciplines and courses, the question of legitimate use of AI within academia, will inevitably be a local decision. That is, a module coordinator, programme lead or Head of Department, will dictate the limits of legitimate uses of AI within module or programme design, in keeping with the module or programme aims and content.
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
Academic Misconduct and Gen AI
ul.ie
Assessment and Gen AI
ul.ie
Generative Artificial Intelligence
ul.ie
Generative Artificial Intelligence Principles for the University, Staff, Researchers and Students
ul.ie
Tips for Students on the use of Gen AI
ul.ie
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.