Policy presence
University of Antwerp has 3 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Antwerp, Belgium
University of Antwerp
University of Antwerp has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 4 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 5 reviewed claims. Last checked May 16, 2026.
University of Antwerp AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
University of Antwerp has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 4 official source attributions, including 5 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 16, 2026. Discovery context: University of Antwerp is listed as QS 2026 rank 280.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists University of Antwerp as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 16, 2026 and last changed on May 16, 2026. The record contains 5 source-backed claims, including 5 reviewed claims, from 4 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-antwerp.json. The entity-level confidence is 92%. 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 Research 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 Antwerp has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
University of Antwerp has 1 source-backed public claim for coursework; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Exams
University of Antwerp has 2 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: blocked.
Privacy and data entry
No source-backed public claim about privacy or data-entry restrictions is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about personal, confidential, sensitive, regulated, or student data entry into AI tools.
Academic integrity
No source-backed public claim about academic-integrity treatment of AI use is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about AI use under academic integrity, misconduct, dishonesty, plagiarism, or cheating rules.
Approved tools
No source-backed public claim identifying approved or licensed AI tools is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence that identifies institutionally approved, licensed, procured, or enterprise AI tools.
Named AI services
No source-backed public claim naming a specific AI service is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence naming a specific AI service.
Teaching guidance
University of Antwerp has 2 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
University of Antwerp has 3 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.
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
5 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Research
University of Antwerp research AI guidelines state that researchers who use AI tools in their research must acknowledge that use, while AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
Review: Agent reviewed
原始证据
Evidence 1In addition to verifying the information provided, researchers must acknowledge the use of AI tools in their research. As mentioned earlier, AI tools cannot be listed as authors on a publication.
Research
University of Antwerp research guidance says that when more responsibility is placed on an AI system, more human control is required, and that researchers remain responsible for correctness and robustness.
Review: Agent reviewed
原始证据
Evidence 1Key concept: the more responsibility is placed on the AI system, the more human control is required afterwards. The responsibility for the correctness and robustness of information ALWAYS lies with the researcher.
Research
University of Antwerp research AI guidelines identify creating core publication or project-application content without thorough fact-checking and substantive editing, and peer review of others' publications or project applications, as uses to avoid.
Review: Agent reviewed
原始证据
Evidence 1Use to be avoided: Creating the core content of publications or project applications without thorough factchecking and additional substantive editing. Peer review of publications or project applications by others.
Teaching
University of Antwerp Dutch ECHO teaching guidance describes AI-proofing as creating teaching situations where students cannot use AI, or are detected if they use it when not allowed, and presents assignment-product changes, process changes, or both as options.
Review: Agent reviewed
原始证据
Evidence 1AI-proofing betekent dat je een onderwijssituatie creëert waarin studenten geen gebruik kunnen maken van AI, of waarin ze door de mand vallen als ze dat toch doen terwijl het niet is toegestaan.
本地化显示 only
AI-proofing means creating a teaching situation where students cannot use AI, or are detected if they use it when not allowed.
Teaching
University of Antwerp ECHO teaching guidance says lecturers can balance AI-tool use in open-book exams with deep understanding and fair assessment by designing sufficiently complex questions and clarifying whether and how students may use AI tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
原始证据
Evidence 1This can be done by making your exam questions sufficiently complex and specific, and by going over guidelines with the students beforehand, clarifying whether and how they can/may use AI tools in your open-book exam.
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
4 source attribution
AI-proofing
uantwerpen.be
Artificial Intelligence
uantwerpen.be
Guidelines for (Generative) Artificial Intelligence in Research at UAntwerp
medialibrary.uantwerpen.be
Open-book exams: what to be mindful of as a lecturer
uantwerpen.be
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.