Policy presence
Uppsala University has 4 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Uppsala, Sweden
Uppsala University
Uppsala University is listed as QS 2026 rank 93. Uppsala University has 11 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 official source attributions. The public record preserves original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, snapshot hashes, confidence, and review state.
Short answer
v1 public contract
Uppsala University is listed as QS 2026 rank 93. Uppsala University has 11 source-backed AI policy claim records from 7 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 Uppsala University as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 13, 2026 and last changed on May 13, 2026. The record contains 11 source-backed claims, including 11 reviewed claims, from 7 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/uppsala-university.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 Teaching claims.
- Evidence includes AI tool treatment claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Source status claims.
- Evidence includes Research claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: Microsoft Copilot.
- 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
Uppsala University has 2 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
Uppsala University has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
Uppsala University has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Uppsala University has 3 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Uppsala University has 4 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
Uppsala University has 3 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
Uppsala University has 5 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Uppsala University has 5 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
Uppsala University has 1 source-backed public claim 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.
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
11 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Privacy
Uppsala University's central guidelines say sensitive personal data may only be transferred to a university-approved generative AI system, and student material may not be transferred without the student's permission to a generative AI system that might use it to train the system.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: sensitive_personal_data_only_to_approved_ai_systems_student_material_requires_permission_for_training_risk_systems
Original evidence
Evidence 1Känsliga personuppgifter får endast överföras till ett av universitet godkänt system för generativ AI. Utan tillstånd från student får studenters material inte överföras till system för generativ AI som kan tänkas använda det för att träna systemen.
Localized display only
Sensitive personal data may only be transferred to a university-approved generative AI system, and student material may not be transferred without permission to systems that may train on it.
Teaching
Uppsala University's central generative AI guidelines say that any restriction on generative AI use in teaching or assessment, and any requirement to report AI use, must be clearly stated in written information; restrictions must be justifiable by learning outcomes, the nature of the task, or pedagogical considerations.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: ai_restrictions_and_reporting_requirements_must_be_written_and_justified
Original evidence
Evidence 1Om användningen av generativ AI är begränsad vid undervisning och/eller examination, ska detta tydligt framgå av skriftlig information. Begränsningen ska kunna motiveras utifrån kunskapsmål, uppgiftens karaktär eller pedagogiska överväganden. Vid undervisning och examination ska det även tydligt framgå av skriftlig information om användning av generativ AI ska redovisas.
Localized display only
Restrictions or reporting requirements for generative AI in teaching or assessment must be clear in written information and restrictions must be justified by learning outcomes, task character, or pedagogy.
Ai Tool Treatment
When students are expected to use generative AI in teaching or assessment, Uppsala University's central guidelines say the course coordinator or examiner must be able to ensure the tools are provided at no cost to the student; if doctoral students are expected to use generative AI, the principal supervisor has responsibility for ensuring suitable tools are available at no cost.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: required_ai_tools_must_be_available_without_student_or_doctoral_student_cost
Original evidence
Evidence 1Om studenter förutsätts att använda generativ AI inom undervisning eller examination, måste kursansvarig/examinator kunna tillse att verktyg tillhandahålls utan kostnad för studenten. Om doktorander förutsätts att använda generativ AI, ligger ansvaret på huvudhandledaren att tillse att lämpliga verktyg är tillgängliga utan kostnad för doktoranden.
Localized display only
If students are expected to use generative AI, the course coordinator or examiner must ensure tools are provided at no cost; for doctoral students, the principal supervisor has that responsibility.
Academic Integrity
Uppsala University's central guidelines say a person who has used AI-generated material is responsible for how it is used, and that academic probity, a critical attitude to the reliability of the material, and ethical considerations must guide the use.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: users_responsible_for_ai_generated_material_and_must_apply_probity_critical_review_ethics
Original evidence
Evidence 1Den person som tagit AI-genererat material i bruk ansvarar för hur det används. Akademisk redlighet, ett kritiskt förhållningsätt till materialets pålitlighet samt etiska överväganden ska genomsyra användningen.
Localized display only
The person who uses AI-generated material is responsible for how it is used, and academic probity, critical review of reliability, and ethical considerations must guide use.
Academic Integrity
Uppsala University's central guidelines state that students who plan to use generative AI in connection with teaching or assessment are responsible for keeping informed about both central guidelines and any applicable local guidelines.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: students_responsible_for_central_and_local_ai_guidelines
Original evidence
Evidence 1Studenter som planerar att använda generativ AI i samband med undervisning eller examination ansvarar för att hålla sig informerade om både centrala och eventuella lokala riktlinjer.
Localized display only
Students planning to use generative AI in teaching or assessment are responsible for staying informed about central and applicable local guidelines.
Academic Integrity
For courses offered by Uppsala University's Faculty of Law from the spring term of 2026, the Faculty guidelines say AI-generated material is not permitted in assessment components unless course documentation explicitly states otherwise; AI-based proofreading tools may be used without reporting, but not for generating new content.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: faculty_of_law_assessment_no_ai_generated_material_unless_course_documentation_allows_proofreading_allowed
Original evidence
Evidence 1These guidelines apply to all courses offered by the Faculty of Law and concern the use of generative AI tools (GAI) in assessment. ... The use of AI-generated material (e.g., text, images, or data) is not permitted in assessment components. ... GAI tools may only be used in assessment if this is explicitly stated in the course documentation for the relevant course. AI-based tools may be used for proofreading, but not for generating new content. The use of such tools for proofreading does not need to be reported.
Localized display only
Faculty of Law assessment guidance prohibits AI-generated material in assessment components unless course documentation explicitly permits it; proofreading tools may be used without reporting.
Ai Tool Treatment
Uppsala University's student AI-tool page says students have free access to Copilot, and that when students log in with their student account, their interactions are covered by the university's Microsoft data-protection agreement, chat data is not saved, and data is not used to train Copilot's large language models.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: students_have_free_copilot_access_with_university_microsoft_data_protection_terms
Original evidence
Evidence 1Students at Uppsala University have free access to the AI tool Copilot. When you log in with your student account, using Copilot is as safe as using other Microsoft online services (M365). When you log in, your interactions with Copilot are safeguarded through the university’s agreement for data protection with Microsoft ... chat data is not saved ... and no data is used to train the LLMs.
Localized display only
Students have free Copilot access; when logged in with a student account, Copilot interactions are covered by Uppsala's Microsoft data-protection agreement and are not used to train LLMs.
Academic Integrity
Uppsala University's student guidance says students with questions about generative AI use in a course should contact their teacher; it also says prohibited generative AI use can be reported to the university disciplinary board and may lead to sanctions such as suspension.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: students_should_contact_teacher_for_course_ai_questions_and_prohibited_use_may_be_disciplined
Original evidence
Evidence 1If you have any questions about the use of generative AI in your course, please contact your teacher. Sometimes it is difficult to know where to draw the line between permissible and prohibited use of generative AI. If there is suspicion of prohibited use of genAI, this can be reported to the Disciplinary Board at Uppsala University, which may lead to sanctions such as suspension.
Localized display only
Student guidance directs course-specific AI questions to the teacher and says suspected prohibited use can be reported to the disciplinary board and may lead to sanctions.
Source Status
Uppsala University's local AI-guidelines index says more institutions, programmes, units, and departments at the university are producing their own AI-use guidelines; the same page states that the university-wide guideline applies from 20 January 2025 and covers education at all levels through doctoral education.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: local_guidelines_index_exists_and_university_wide_guideline_applies_all_education_levels_from_2025_01_20
Original evidence
Evidence 1Fler och fler institutioner, program, enheter och avdelningar vid Uppsala universitet tar fram egna riktlinjer för AI-användning. På denna sida samlar vi de lokala riktlinjerna för AI. ... Universitetet har fått sin första universitetsövergripande riktlinje för AI i undervisningen. Riktlinjen gäller från den 20 januari 2025. De nya riktlinjerna omfattar utbildning på alla nivåer från grundnivå till och med forskarutbildning.
Localized display only
Uppsala maintains a local AI-guidelines index and states that the university-wide teaching AI guideline applies from 20 January 2025 and covers all education levels through doctoral education.
Teaching
Uppsala University's staff examination guidance advises teachers to use UU's Copilot and remove identifying information if uploading student texts for AI-assisted feedback, and says that for now it is wise to refrain from letting AI grade exams.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: staff_guidance_use_uu_copilot_for_uploaded_student_texts_and_refrain_from_ai_exam_grading
Original evidence
Evidence 1Use UU’s Copilot if you upload students’ texts - not just any tools. And remove all identifying information from the text before uploading it. ... The EU AI Act considers examination to be a critical area where extra high demands are placed on users of generative AI, and for now, it is wise to refrain from letting AI grade exams.
Localized display only
Staff guidance advises using UU's Copilot and removing identifiers for uploaded student texts, and says it is wise for now to refrain from AI grading exams.
Research
Uppsala University's research AI introduction states that it is practical support rather than a rulebook; its quickstart guidance tells researchers to use Copilot Chat via UU login, never share sensitive or confidential information in an AI tool, double-check AI-generated material, and document how AI tools are used.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: research_ai_intro_is_support_not_rulebook_and_recommends_copilot_no_sensitive_data_checking_and_documentation
Original evidence
Evidence 1Den här introduktionsguiden är ett praktiskt stöd för användandet av AI i forskningen vid Uppsala universitet. Den är inte en regelbok eller riktlinje, utan ska ses som ett enkelt verktyg för att komma i gång ... Snabbstart – checklista för att komma igång: Använd Copilot Chat via UU-inloggning; Dela aldrig känslig eller sekretessbelagd information i ett AI-verktyg; Dubbelkolla alltid AI-genererat material; Dokumentera hur du använder AI-verktygen.
Localized display only
The research AI introduction is practical support, not a rulebook; its quickstart says to use Copilot Chat via UU login, never share sensitive/confidential information, double-check AI output, and document AI 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
7 source attribution
AI tools for students
uu.se
Faculty of Law guidelines on restrictions on Generative AI (GAI) in assessment
uu.se
Generative AI and studies
uu.se
Introduktion för användning av AI i forskningen
uu.se
Lokala riktlinjer för AI
uu.se
Riktlinjer för användning av generativ AI i undervisning och examination
uu.se
Using AI in Examinations
uu.se
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.