Policy presence
University of Regina has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Regina, Canada
University of Regina
University of Regina has 8 source-backed AI policy claims from 5 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 8 reviewed claims. Last checked May 25, 2026.
University of Regina AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
University of Regina has 8 source-backed AI policy claims from 5 official source attributions, including 8 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 25, 2026. Discovery context: University of Regina is listed as QS 2026 rank 1001-1200.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists University of Regina as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 25, 2026 and last changed on May 25, 2026. The record contains 8 source-backed claims, including 8 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-regina.json. The entity-level confidence is 95%. 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 AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- No specific AI service name is highlighted by the current public claim text.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution language appears in the public claim text.
- 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
University of Regina has 3 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
University of Regina has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Regina has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Regina has 3 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
University of Regina has 4 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
University of Regina has 4 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Regina has 3 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
University of Regina has 4 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
No source-backed public claim about research AI use is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about research use, publication ethics, research data, grants, or human-subjects compliance.
Security and procurement
University of Regina 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
8 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Privacy
University of Regina policy treats data used to develop, operate, share, manage, or record GenAI systems as institutional data that must align with the University's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy policy and data handling standards.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: GenAI project and system data is institutional data governed by privacy and data handling rules.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Data used to develop algorithms or GenAI systems, and any data generated, shared, managed and/or recorded as part of an GenAI system's operation or algorithm, will be considered institutional data and must be managed in alignment with GOV-060-005 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy policy and the University's data handling standards.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Regina policy OPS-080-050 says all University use of generative AI must be ethical, reliable, transparent, secure, and compliant with applicable laws and regulations; the policy primarily addresses governance and operations uses by employees.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Formal GenAI operations policy for employee governance and operations use.
Original evidence
Evidence 1This policy applies to the development, approval, use and management of GenAI software, systems, or platforms that may be used by University of Regina employees... All University use of GenAI must be ethical, reliable, transparent, secure and compliant with applicable laws and regulations.
Security Review
For GenAI projects or systems, University of Regina employees are directed to identify, assess, and analyze risks including privacy and security, and University-wide GenAI projects, tools, systems, or intended enterprise-data uses require approval through established IT project approval processes.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: GenAI projects require risk assessment, and university-wide or enterprise-data GenAI uses require IT project approval.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Any employee who is considering a GenAI project or system must identify, assess and analyze risks and opportunities... including privacy and security. Any University-wide GenAI project, tool, system or intended use of enterprise-level data requires approval through established IT project approval processes.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Regina CTL guidance says Turnitin is the only institutionally adopted plagiarism- and AI-detection tool, the AI-detection report is not conclusive proof of academic misconduct, and instructors are not permitted to use non-approved tools for AI detection.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Turnitin is the institutionally adopted AI-detection tool; non-approved AI-detection tools are not permitted.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Due to the unreliability of AI-detection tools, and the possibility of false positives, the AI-detection report cannot be considered conclusive proof of academic misconduct... Turnitin is presently the only institutionally adopted plagiarism- and AI-detection tool and... instructors are not permitted to use non-approved tools for the purpose of AI-detection.
Academic Integrity
The University of Regina Provost's message to students says individual instructors may determine whether and to what extent AI is permitted in course work, and warns that improper or unauthorized AI use can constitute academic misconduct.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Student AI use is course/instructor-specific, and unauthorized use can be academic misconduct.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Individual instructors may determine whether the use of AI will be permitted, and to what extent, when it comes to assigned course work... improper or unauthorized use of AI can constitute academic misconduct.
Teaching
University of Regina CTL guidance for faculty and instructors recommends that instructors set clear GenAI rules and syllabus statements, require students to disclose AI use when incorporated into coursework, and protect student privacy and intellectual property in teaching uses of GenAI.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Faculty/instructor guidance recommends clear rules, disclosure, and privacy/IP protection for GenAI in coursework.
Original evidence
Evidence 1It is strongly recommended that instructors incorporate a statement on the use of generative AI into course syllabi... Instructors should require students to disclose when and how they've incorporated AI into their coursework... Instructors should also endeavour to protect the privacy and intellectual property of students in any use of generative AI in teaching.
Academic Integrity
Archer Library's student-facing GenAI guidance tells students to check whether they have permission to use AI in their program or coursework, follow assignment instructions, verify GenAI output accuracy, and cite GenAI in their work.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Library guidance frames acceptable GenAI use around permission, assignment instructions, accuracy checks, and citation.
Original evidence
Evidence 1These questions will guide you in determining whether or not use is acceptable: 1. Do you have permission to use AI in your program or course work? 2. Have you followed the assignment instructions? ... 4. Have you checked if the GenAI output is accurate? 5. Have you cited GenAI in your work?
Academic Integrity
Archer Library's GenAI citation guide says AI-generated materials should generally be treated as a non-recoverable source and/or akin to personal communication, while students should check with their instructor if in doubt about when to cite AI and which style to use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Library citation guidance advises instructor confirmation and style-specific treatment for AI-generated materials.
Original evidence
Evidence 1In general, though, you should treat AI-generated materials as a non-recoverable source and/or akin to personal communication... As always, please be sure to check with your instructor if in doubt about when to cite AI and what style to use.
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 Integrity and Artificial Intelligence
uregina.ca
Artificial Intelligence: Citing Generative AI
library.uregina.ca
Artificial Intelligence: Using Generative AI
library.uregina.ca
Generative AI at the U of Regina
ctl.uregina.ca
Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence
uregina.ca
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.