建议做

Los Angeles, United States
本站使用指南
机构ChatGPT Edu不授予任务许可;2026年8月普通上诉依书面决定发出起算,排除博士学术诚信及已约定结果。
本站解读;官方证据保留原文。
尚无完整的学生政策摘要;可先查看已收录条款及来源。
机构ChatGPT Edu不授予任务许可;2026年8月普通上诉依书面决定发出起算,排除博士学术诚信及已约定结果。

补充资料采集: 2026-10-09 · 现行适用性未独立确认
本站解读
ChatGPT Edu访问不改变课程许可。学生须向教师确认;将他人或GenAI作品当本人作品,即使改写也属抄袭。教师制定课程具体用法。
适用范围: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
ChatGPT Edu access does not change course permission. Students must confirm expectations with instructors; presenting another’s or GenAI work as their own, even paraphrased, is plagiarism. Instructors set course-specific allowable use.
适用范围: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university
Generative AI and ChatGPT Edu
USC recently announced that all active USC students, faculty, and staff will gain unlimited access to ChatGPT Edu .
While this tool may be useful for some projects, students are expected to confirm with their instructors what generative AI use, if any, is permitted in their coursework before using it. Students should also connect with instructors to ensure that they fully understand the expectations and limitations regarding the use of Generative AI and/or any external resources.
USC remains committed to upholding academic integrity and the academic freedoms of instructors. Instructors are encouraged to reiterate course expectations around the use or prohibition of generative AI tools and expressly communicate to students that the access to ChatGPT Edu does not indicate a shift in policy or expectation. Instructors have the flexibility to set their own course-specific policies regarding the allowable use of generative AI in coursework. If and to what extent instructors would like to allow the use of this tool in their courses, the Office of Academic Integrity encourages instructors to set clear expectations around proper usage in their syllabus and on assignment rubrics.
University Policy Reminder
Work authored by another (including material created by ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools) but represented as the student’s work, whether paraphrased or copied verbatim or in near-verbatim form, is considered plagiarism. If instructors have reason to believe that a student has violated course policy on AI use, they are encouraged to submit a report to OAI.查看官方来源 ↗采集日期: 2026-10-09 · 40–45
SHA-256: 3df46a58d4e9282191aa9366dc298911d042b467b45df09b3b4338e69f2793af
本站解读
行政审核允许学生解释,证据不足可撤案。接受责任及结果达成约定后无上诉。争议案件若可能停学、开除或撤销学位/录取须转panel;较轻争议由OAI决定并可上诉。
适用范围: Undergraduate and non-doctoral graduate administrative-review route; doctoral handbook rules separate · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Administrative review allows the student to explain and may dismiss insufficient evidence. An agreed resolution accepting responsibility and outcomes has no appeal. Contested potential suspension/expulsion/degree or admission revocation goes to a panel; lesser contested cases are determined by OAI with an appeal option.
适用范围: Undergraduate and non-doctoral graduate administrative-review route; doctoral handbook rules separate · university
Agreed administrative resolution is not appealable.
Administrative Review
Incidents reported to OAI and not resolved through an FSR will be reviewed through the Administrative Review process. OAI will send notice to the student involved (via USC email). The instructor on record will also be copied on the notification to the student.
The student will be invited to meet with OAI staff to discuss the incident, answer questions, and provide their perspective of what occurred.
If it is determined that there exists insufficient information to conclude that the student violated university policy by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., what is more likely to have occurred) standard, then the case will be dismissed with no findings or outcomes issued.
If the student accepts responsibility for the allegations, OAI staff may seek to reach an agreement with the student during the administrative review as to appropriate outcomes. If an agreement is reached (i.e., the student accepts responsibility for the alleged violations and the outcomes proposed by OAI staff), the matter is considered resolved and no appeal is available.
If the student challenges either the findings of responsibility and/or the outcomes proposed by OAI staff, the next steps are dependent on the possible outcomes proposed by OAI staff.
If an outcome could include suspension, expulsion, revocation of admission, or revocation of degree, OAI staff will refer the matter to a review panel for its determination of responsibility and outcomes. The student’s previous disciplinary record will be considered in determining appropriate outcomes and the student retains their ability to appeal the decision issued.
If there is no potential outcome of suspension, expulsion, revocation of admission, or revocation of degree, OAI staff will use a preponderance of evidence standard to determine if the student is responsible for the allegation(s). (There is no option for a review panel.) If so, OAI staff will determine the appropriate outcomes with consideration of the student’s previous disciplinary record (if any). The student may submit an appeal.查看官方来源 ↗采集日期: 2026-10-09 · 45–52
SHA-256: 07625ccbf3f210071058cc80bba6daf9a562bece4aead7c32b57c59563f13317
本站解读
师生直接解决须本科生修本科课、接受指控及拟处理、OAI认可且无既往FSR/OAI责任记录。500以上研究生课或非progressive degree研究生不符合资格。
适用范围: FSR eligibility only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Faculty-Student Resolution requires an undergraduate in an undergraduate course, accepting the allegation and proposed resolution, OAI suitability and no previous FSR/OAI accountability. A graduate-level course (500+) or a graduate degree other than a progressive degree is ineligible.
适用范围: FSR eligibility only · university
Student degree and course level both matter.
Faculty-Student Resolution
The FSR permits instructors to resolve academic dishonesty directly with a student if the following criteria are met:
The student is an undergraduate enrolled in an undergraduate course.
The student accepts responsibility for the allegation (and the instructor’s proposed resolution);
The alleged behavior is deemed appropriate by OAI for resolution between the instructor and student; and
The student has not previously been held accountable for academic dishonesty through an FSR or through OAI.
An FSR form is completed and signed by the faculty and student involved and then submitted to OAI.
If the alleged academic integrity violation occurred in a graduate level course (course number 500 or above) or by a student enrolled in a graduate degree program other than a progressive degree program, the case is not eligible for the FSR process.查看官方来源 ↗采集日期: 2026-10-09 · 62–69
SHA-256: 07625ccbf3f210071058cc80bba6daf9a562bece4aead7c32b57c59563f13317
本站解读
2026年8月手册规定,普通OCE/OAI上诉须在书面决定发出起十个business days内提出,延期由上诉经理裁量。博士学术诚信及已达成行政约定案件不属这条普通上诉路线。
学生 · 采用此程序时须遵守
学生 · 起算:issuance date of the written decision
Source unit retained; no invented day exclusions or automatic date calculation.;Appeal-manager discretion for extensions; doctoral academic-integrity and agreed resolutions excluded.
适用范围: Ordinary disciplinary appeal route, excluding doctoral academic-integrity and agreed administrative resolutions · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Under the August 2026 handbook, the ordinary OCE/OAI appeal must be submitted within ten business days from issuance of the written decision; extensions are at the appeal manager’s discretion. Doctoral academic-integrity violations and agreed administrative resolutions are excluded from this ordinary appeal route.
适用范围: Ordinary disciplinary appeal route, excluding doctoral academic-integrity and agreed administrative resolutions · university
• Appeal Process. A student/organization must submit an
and provide a written decision to the student/
appeal to the appeal manager within 10 business days
organization and OCE/OAI. The appellate authority
from the date of issuance of the written decision. Any
may uphold the initial decision in its entirety, send the
request for an extension is at the discretion of the
case back to OCE/OAI for further review, modify
appeal manager.查看官方来源 ↗采集日期: 2026-10-09 · 2021–2029
SHA-256: e89f6a2b3e943f4c23d07ead27a0fd786b75fd541d4c36b791724ecae8d2968a
student/organization entitled to, an additional Review Panel Appeals
process. Under those circumstances, if OCE/OAI determines
by a preponderance of the evidence that the student/ • Appeal Eligibility. The determination or outcome(s) of
organization has committed an additional policy violation, the an administrative review or Review Panel in OCE or
deferred outcome shall be implemented without referral to a OAI may be appealed by the student/organization
Review Panel, unless, in the university’s sole judgment, pursuant to this section, other than academic integrity
extraordinary circumstances justify not doing so. violations by doctoral students.
Outcomes that may be deferred include, but are not limited to, Students/organizations may not appeal an
removal from housing, suspension, expulsion, and loss of group administrative review in which they accepted
recognition. A decision to implement a deferred outcome does responsibility for the alleged violation(s) and reached an
not prevent them from applying additional or more significant agreement as to (an) outcome(s) or an administrative
outcomes (e.g., expulsion). review or Review Panel in which the student/
Other Outcomes organization was not found responsible for a violation查看官方来源 ↗采集日期: 2026-10-09 · 1966–1978
SHA-256: e89f6a2b3e943f4c23d07ead27a0fd786b75fd541d4c36b791724ecae8d2968a
本站解读
检测百分比不能确定AI作者身份,可能误报。计划使用须告知学生并去识别信息;仅检测证据、无额外分析或支持不足以认定。鼓励结合上下文交流,但非必需。
适用范围: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
Detector percentages cannot definitively identify AI authorship and may be false positives. Students should be informed of planned detector use and identifying information removed. Detector evidence alone is insufficient without additional analysis or support; a contextual conversation is encouraged but not required.
适用范围: Students in the cited programme/course/stage only · university
Human analysis and supporting elements remain; no automatic finding from percentages.
AI Detection Tools Guidance
Instructors should exercise caution when using AI detection tools and prioritize their own professional judgment when evaluating student work.
While automated detection tools may seem like a convenient solution, it’s crucial to understand their limitations. For example, they cannot definitively identify AI-generated content and have been known to produce false positives, which can unfairly implicate students. Overreliance on these tools can lead to incorrect labeling of student work as AI-generated, potentially damaging trust and causing harm to innocent students.
If you plan to use AI detection software on student work, students should be explicitly informed of this. It is also important to remove all identifying information before the work is shared with an AI platform to avoid violating FERPA.
Instead of relying solely on percentages from automated detection tools, it is recommended that instructors limit their use to highlight passages requiring additional consideration. If you suspect unauthorized use of Generative AI, begin by reviewing the work to identify areas of concern. For example, upon further review, does the work appear to
Use unexpected or restricted sources
Fabricate source materials
Have a change in voice or tone from the student’s other assignments
Lack evidence of the student’s learning process (e.g., missing drafts, outlines, or other required elements that demonstrate building upon ideas)
Is unexpected for the course material
Something else?
When concerns arise, consider having a conversation with the student about their work before making conclusions. This is not required, but can provide valuable context and may reveal legitimate explanations eliminating the need to file a report with OAI.
When submitting a report to OAI regarding unauthorized use of Generative AI in student work, it is expected that the instructor identifies why they believe the assignment, whether in full or in part, was created using Generative AI. Instructors should feel confident reporting any time they believe a violation may have occurred. However, relying on evidence created by AI detection tools is insufficient to determine responsibility without additional analysis or other supporting elements. The instructor’s analysis and contextual understanding of the student’s work are essential components of the academic integrity process and underscore the importance of human judgment in the detection process. While instructors are not required to find additional supporting elements, students are not likely to be found responsible without it.查看官方来源 ↗采集日期: 2026-10-09 · 52–64
SHA-256: eccb185f9cce1f7b3f786ed0c4adea929d031560d46a6075e5380f77fd400f8b
本站解读
一般AI政策要求数据/知识产权保护、人类判断及遵守学院、课程和研究其他规则。无获准合同/审查不得用USC数据训练第三方模型,可关闭时须关闭训练。PHI工具另需医疗批准;此政策不授予课程许可。
适用范围: Covered individuals acting for USC, on USC networks or with USC data · Only the captured source, version, audience and conditions; no exhaustive currency certification.
The general AI policy requires data/IP safeguards, human judgement and compliance with other school/course/research rules. USC data cannot train third-party models without an approved agreement/review; disable training where available. PHI tools require additional healthcare approvals. This general policy is not course authorisation.
适用范围: Covered individuals acting for USC, on USC networks or with USC data · university
Approved agreement/review exception; PHI additional approvals.
5.1 Protecting USC Data
5.1.1 AI Tools, like any technology, carry inherent risks of data exposure once data has been input. Therefore, all Covered Individuals must familiarize themselves with the following guidelines before using any AI Tools for USC purposes, on a USC network, or with USC data.
5.1.2 Covered Individuals and System Owners must abide by all applicable data protection and information security Policies when using AI Tools, including University information Security Policies and Standards.
5.1.3 In alignment with incident reporting requirements, Covered Individuals and System Owners must immediately report potential and suspected unauthorized disclosure or use of USC Confidential or Internal Use Only data.
Possible and actual data privacy issues should be reported to a supervisor and the Office of Ethics and Compliance (compliance@usc.edu) or Report and Response (report.usc.edu)
Possible and actual cybersecurity related issues should be reported to a supervisor and the USC Cyber Defense Team’s Security Operations Center (security@usc.edu)
5.1.4 AI tools also carry unique risks with respect to intellectual property. Covered Individuals must comply with all applicable intellectual property laws and University policies when using AI Tools. The use of AI Tools does not alter or diminish obligations relating to copyright, trademark, patent, licensing, attribution, citation, permissions, or other intellectual property requirements. Any use of AI-Tools for USC purposes must comply with applicable legal requirements and University policies governing the use of third-party intellectual property and other protected content.
5.1.5 USC Data may not be used to train, retrain, fine-tune, or otherwise improve third-party Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning models unless expressly authorized by the University through an approved agreement and review process. Covered Individuals must ensure that AI tools and services are configured, where available, to disable use of USC Data for model training or product improvement.
5.2 Protecting USC Integrity
5.2.1 Decisions affecting University operations, academic matters, employment actions, admissions, student outcomes, research conclusions, healthcare activities, or legal obligations may not rely solely on AI-generated outputs and require appropriate human review and judgment.
5.2.2 Covered Individuals may be subject to rules governing the use and disclosure of external assistance and sources, including, but not limited to AI Tools. Compliance with this Policy does not relieve an individual from their responsibility to comply will other applicable policies, including, but not limited to, the Integrity and Accountability Code, Faculty Handbook, Student Handbook, guidance issued by the Office of Research Integrity, IRB determinations, and any other specific Department, School, or Unit, or course requirements.
5.3 Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence Tools
5.3.1 Contracting to purchase or receive access to any software or service that utilizes AI requires clear disclosure during the procurement process and adherence to applicable Third-Party Security Risk Management and Secure Systems Development policies and standards. Following the approval for any AI software or service, all standard USC Procurement policies and processes are applicable to complete the purchase. Additional review may be required during procurement-related contracting reviews.
5.3.1.1 Purchased AI Tools, which generally carry terms and conditions for use, must be processed in alignment with University and DSU-specific processes
5.3.1.2 All tools are also subject to the University’s Acceptable Use, Data Protection policies and other relevant University policies when used for USC purposes and/or when used on a USC network.
5.3.1.3 AI tools that create, transmit, store, or otherwise process Protected Health Information (PHI) or other HIPAA-covered data may be subject to additional requirements beyond this Policy, including (a) an executed Business Associate Agreement with the vendor, (b) approval by Keck Medicine of USC’s Office of Healthcare Compliance, (c) approval by a designated Keck Medicine of USC task force, and (d) deployment only within environments authorized for clinical or HIPAA-regulated use. Additional details for Keck Medicine of USC relevant policies related to these requirements can be found in ISPOL-002 Acceptable Use Policy and ISPOL-039 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Responsible Use Policy.查看官方来源 ↗采集日期: 2026-10-09 · 80–95
SHA-256: 04d13f05125c52b81806b2e31923f50ef1c84dbcd481d27e79a29904fe241741
已发布的来源补充。英文摘要与原语言引文和已审核记录分开展示。这里列出可能的程序与结果,不是使用 AI 的自动处罚;现行适用性尚未独立确认,请核对来源的适用范围和版本。
按所存原文核对;不是官方译文
哈希仅用于核对所存内容,不证明现行有效性或不可篡改。这些主题不表示每个学生都会经历的流程。
能获取工具不等于获准在作业中使用。请同时核对任务规则、适用人员和数据限制。
存档工具记录;当前获取方式请核对官方来源。 以下获取说明与证据引用保留原文语言。
Institutional access for active students, faculty and staff. OAI explicitly says access does not change assessment permission; confirm instructor expectations.
Use USC ITS institutional ChatGPT Edu access.
No separate user price established by these captures.
补充来源核对日期:
原文引用
ITS is USC’s central hub for secure, enterprise AI services – providing students, faculty and staff with access to trusted, centralized tools that drive operational efficiency and data-informed decision-making.
Training & Resources | Frequently Asked Questions | AI Product Matrix | ChatGPT Edu Updates
What’s Available
ChatGPT Edu
Gemini Notebook
Microsoft Copilot Chat
Google Gemini
What’s Included
ChatGPT Edu
ChatGPT Edu is an AI chatbot available to active USC staff, faculty and students.原文引用
USC recently announced that all active USC students, faculty, and staff will gain unlimited access to ChatGPT Edu .
While this tool may be useful for some projects, students are expected to confirm with their instructors what generative AI use, if any, is permitted in their coursework before using it. Students should also connect with instructors to ensure that they fully understand the expectations and limitations regarding the use of Generative AI and/or any external resources.
USC remains committed to upholding academic integrity and the academic freedoms of instructors. Instructors are encouraged to reiterate course expectations around the use or prohibition of generative AI tools and 原文引用
expressly communicate to students that the access to ChatGPT Edu does not indicate a shift in policy or expectation. Instructors have the flexibility to set their own course-specific policies regarding the allowable use of generative AI in coursework. If and to what extent instructors would like to allow the use of this tool in their courses, the Office of Academic Integrity encourages instructors to set clear expectations around proper usage in their syllabus and on assignment rubrics.USC's central IT service makes Gemini available through its Google Workspace tools.
Launch Gemini with USC Google Workspace access.
Not specified by the cited source.
USC's central IT service makes Copilot Chat available through Microsoft 365.
Launch Copilot through USC Microsoft 365.
Not specified by the cited source.
原文引用
Copilot Chat is a web-grounded AI assistant available to all USC students, faculty, and staff through Microsoft 365.USC's central IT service lists Zoom AI Companion for its Zoom users.
Sign in to Zoom at USC.
Not specified by the cited source.
Reviewed record
12 条已审核条款
Academic Integrity
标准化值: coursework_ai_use_requires_instructor_guidance
原始证据
证据 1Students are expected to confirm with their instructors what generative AI use, if any, is permitted in their coursework before using it. ... access to ChatGPT Edu does not indicate a shift in policy or expectation.
Academic Integrity
标准化值: representing_ai_generated_material_as_student_work_is_plagiarism
原始证据
证据 1Work authored by another (including material created by ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools) but represented as the student’s work, whether paraphrased or copied verbatim or in near-verbatim form, is considered plagiarism.
Academic Integrity
标准化值: ai_detection_evidence_insufficient_without_contextual_review
原始证据
证据 1Instructors should exercise caution when using AI detection tools and prioritize their own professional judgment when evaluating student work. ... relying on evidence created by AI detection tools is insufficient to determine responsibility without additional analysis or other supporting elements.
隐私
标准化值: sensitive_data_restrictions_for_individual_and_enterprise_ai_tools
原始证据
证据 1No Internal Use Only Data, Confidential Data, or Restricted Confidential Data may be input into any Individual AI Tools. ... Restricted Confidential Data may not be entered into any AI Tool, including USC Enterprise AI Tools, unless expressly approved in writing by the Office of Ethics and Compliance (OEC).
Security Review
标准化值: codex_only_public_internal_use_data_at_time_of_guidance
原始证据
证据 1Codex is available to those that meet the approval criteria. ... As Codex is a tool native to ChatGPT, only Public and Internal Use data may be used at this time. Confidential data must not be entered into ChatGPT and, by extension, Codex.
Ai Tool Treatment
标准化值: {"tool":"chatgpt","rawToolName":"ChatGPT Edu","description":"USC's central IT service lists ChatGPT Edu as available for university use.","howToObtain":"Use the USC ChatGPT Edu workspace with an active USC account.","costToUser":"Not specified by the cited source.","availability":"allowed","endorsementType":"not_specified"}
原始证据
证据 1ChatGPT Edu is available for university use. All active USC students, faculty, and staff can access ChatGPT Edu.
本地化显示 only
ChatGPT Edu is available for university use. All active USC students, faculty, and staff can access ChatGPT Edu.
Ai Tool Treatment
标准化值: {"tool":"gemini","rawToolName":"Google Gemini","description":"USC's central IT service makes Gemini available through its Google Workspace tools.","howToObtain":"Launch Gemini with USC Google Workspace access.","costToUser":"Not specified by the cited source.","availability":"allowed","endorsementType":"not_specified"}
原始证据
证据 1Gemini is available to all USC students, faculty, and staff.
本地化显示 only
Gemini is available to all USC students, faculty, and staff.
Ai Tool Treatment
标准化值: {"tool":"microsoft_copilot","rawToolName":"Microsoft Copilot Chat","description":"USC's central IT service makes Copilot Chat available through Microsoft 365.","howToObtain":"Launch Copilot through USC Microsoft 365.","costToUser":"Not specified by the cited source.","availability":"allowed","endorsementType":"not_specified"}
原始证据
证据 1Copilot Chat is a web-grounded AI assistant available to all USC students, faculty, and staff through Microsoft 365.
本地化显示 only
Copilot Chat is a web-grounded AI assistant available to all USC students, faculty, and staff through Microsoft 365.
Ai Tool Treatment
标准化值: {"tool":"zoom_ai_companion","rawToolName":"Zoom AI Companion","description":"USC's central IT service lists Zoom AI Companion for its Zoom users.","howToObtain":"Sign in to Zoom at USC.","costToUser":"Not specified by the cited source.","availability":"allowed","endorsementType":"not_specified"}
原始证据
证据 1Zoom AI Companion is available to all Zoom users. Login to Zoom at USC.
本地化显示 only
Zoom AI Companion is available to all Zoom users. Login to Zoom at USC.
Ai Tool Treatment
标准化值: users_responsible_for_ai_output_accuracy_in_usc_work_product
原始证据
证据 1Covered Individuals are responsible for checking outputs from Generative AI tools for accuracy and completeness, and are responsible for any output generated by their use of an AI Tool when that output is used in USC work product.
Ai Tool Treatment
标准化值: chatgpt_edu_workspace_no_openai_general_model_training
原始证据
证据 1USC’s ChatGPT Edu workspace provides a platform for students, faculty, and staff to explore generative AI without training OpenAI’s general models.
采购
标准化值: departments_must_consult_before_acquiring_individual_ai_tools
原始证据
证据 1Departments, schools, and units may not acquire Individual AI Tools without first consulting the Office of Cybersecurity, Office of Ethics and Compliance, and the Office of the General Counsel.
Source record
6 个来源
academicintegrity.usc.edu
ai.usc.edu
itservices.usc.edu
academicintegrity.usc.edu
policy.usc.edu
itservices.usc.edu
Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. "University of Southern California AI Policy Tracker record." Last checked July 19, 2026. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/university-of-southern-california
Original university source language remains canonical. This tracker is not an official university statement.
打开变更日志Saved from University AI Policy Tracker. This record summarizes the cited sources; it is not an official university statement or assessment permission. Source and review dates are listed above. Hashes identify retained content, not authorization.