Policy presence
University of Turku has 1 source-backed public claim for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Turku, Finland
University of Turku
Record status
Review: Agent reviewed
Policy profile
Review: Machine candidate
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 Turku has 3 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Turku has 3 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Turku has 1 source-backed public claim for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: required.
Academic integrity
University of Turku has 1 source-backed public claim for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Approved tools
University of Turku has 1 source-backed public claim for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
University of Turku has 2 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
University of Turku has 1 source-backed public claim 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 Turku has 1 source-backed public claim for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: required.
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
Academic Integrity
University of Turku's misconduct guideline states that using AI is forbidden when a student aims to give a false impression of their own competence.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: AI use is misconduct when used to misrepresent competence.
Original evidence
Evidence 1Using AI is also forbidden if the student aims to give a false impression of their own competence.
Privacy
University of Turku's chatbot privacy notice states that the chatbot does not require authentication, stores queries automatically for 365 days, and does not use service information for automatic decision-making or profiling.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Chatbot privacy notice: no authentication required; queries retained 365 days; no automatic decisions.
Original evidence
Evidence 1The service does not require authentication. ... Queries are automatically stored for 365 days. ... The service does not make automatic decisions.
Ai Tool Treatment
University of Turku states in an official Vice Rector perspective that AI use in learning is allowed, that its use must be reported, and that course teachers may encourage, instruct, restrict, or prohibit AI use when justified by learning objectives.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: AI allowed in learning with reporting; course-level restrictions may apply.
Original evidence
Evidence 1The starting point is clear: the use of AI in learning is allowed and its use must be reported. Universities have freedom of teaching, and the teacher responsible for the course can encourage, instruct or restrict the use of AI in different ways. Using AI on a course can also be prohibited altogether, when it is appropriate for achieving the learning objectives. The prohibition must be duly justified.
Teaching
University of Turku's Vice Rector states that teachers retain authority and responsibility for coursework evaluation and that AI cannot be the decision-maker in assessing academic performance.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: AI may support attention or evaluation workflows, but assessment decisions remain with teachers.
Original evidence
Evidence 1The teacher(s) responsible for the course always have the authority and responsibility for the evaluation of the coursework and the related decision-making. This responsibility cannot be outsourced and AI cannot be the decision-maker.
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Official sources
3 source attribution
AI with integrity
utu.fi
Chatbot Privacy Notice
utu.fi
Guideline for misconduct in studies at the University of Turku
utu.fi