← 政策图谱Atlas 申请环节Admissions 学生规范Guidelines
No.37 / 52 · 52 所大学 AI 使用政策比较研究No.37 of 52 · AI Use Policies at 52 Universities

Barnard

Barnard College巴纳德学院

来源层级 · 混合来源Source level · Mixed 9 / 12 项有明文规定9 of 12 provisions addressed 采集于 2026-09-26Accessed 2026-09-26 申请环节 · 仅本人写作/真实性要求Admissions · Authenticity requirement only

原文摘录Excerpt

选取标准:对高中读者最具引用价值的一句原文。Selected as the sentence most quotable for a high-school reader.

It is important to note that generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude cannot replace the value of independent thinking or scholarship.

↓ 在原文中的位置↓ Where it appears in the source

十二项条款The twelve provisions

9 / 12

每项附该校原文中的依据语句,以及图谱 52 校中持同一立场的校数。颜色越深,规定越明确、越具约束力(不代表优劣);斜纹表示该来源未作表述。Each provision gives the supporting sentence and how many of the 52 universities in the atlas take the same position. Darker means more explicit and binding (not better); hatching means the source does not address it.

许可Permission使用许可由谁决定who decides whether AI may be used

默认规则Default rule

Default rule默认规则

作业未说明可否使用 AI 时,适用何种规则?When an assignment says nothing about AI, what applies?

默认禁止Prohibited by default主流口径MOST COMMON
only using generative AI for academic work when it is allowed by your instructor

编码说明CODING NOTEStudents may use GenAI for academic work only when their instructor allows it.

52 校中 19 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:默认禁止(19/45)19 of 52 take this position · most common: Prohibited by default (19/45)

课程规则优先Instructor override

Instructor override课程规则优先

任课教师的规定是否优先于校级规定?Does an instructor's rule take precedence over the institution's?

教师可定但有底线Instructor rules within limits主流口径MOST COMMON
Each of your instructors may have their own position on what constitutes academic dishonesty with respect to these tools, but across disciplines, scholars agree that submitting AI-generated content as one’s own—or relying on it without proper attribution—violates principles of academic honesty.

编码说明CODING NOTEInstructors set their own stance on AI dishonesty, but a baseline norm against unattributed AI use as one's own persists regardless.

52 校中 33 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:教师可定但有底线(33/45)33 of 52 take this position · most common: Instructor rules within limits (33/45)

分级许可Tiered scale

Tiered scale分级许可

是否设有分级的使用许可框架?Is there a graduated permission framework?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述;这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 32 所同样未作表述32 of 52 are likewise silent

透明Transparency使用后须说明的内容what must be declared after use

披露要求Disclosure

Disclosure披露要求

使用 AI 是否须予披露?为强制还是建议?Must AI use be disclosed, and is that required or recommended?

强制披露Required主流口径MOST COMMON
relying on it without proper attribution—violates principles of academic honesty

编码说明CODING NOTESubmitting AI content as one's own, or without attribution, is treated as a violation of academic honesty.

52 校中 20 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:强制披露(20/46)20 of 52 take this position · most common: Required (20/46)

过程留证Process evidence

Process evidence过程留证

是否须保留草稿、提示词或编辑历史?Must drafts, prompts or edit history be kept?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述;这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 33 所同样未作表述33 of 52 are likewise silent

责任Accountability错误与违规的责任归属responsibility for errors and violations

核实责任Verification duty

Verification duty核实责任

AI 输出有误或虚构引注时,由谁负责?Who is responsible when AI output is wrong or a citation is invented?

须自行核实Verification required主流口径MOST COMMON
Always verify information with credible sources and cultivate the expertise needed to assess AI-generated material critically.

编码说明CODING NOTEStudents must verify AI-generated information against credible sources rather than trust it outright.

52 校中 17 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:须自行核实(17/38)17 of 52 take this position · most common: Verification required (17/38)

违规定性Integrity framing

Integrity framing违规定性

违规使用在纪律体系中如何定性?How is a violation classified in the disciplinary system?

学术不端Academic integrity violation主流口径MOST COMMON
relying on it without proper attribution—violates principles of academic honesty

编码说明CODING NOTEUndisclosed or unattributed AI use is framed as a violation of academic honesty principles.

52 校中 28 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:学术不端(28/44)28 of 52 take this position · most common: Academic integrity violation (28/44)

检测器证据Detector evidence

Detector evidence检测器证据

AI 检测工具的结果能否作为证据?Can AI-detection results be used as evidence?

未作表述Not addressed

本项目采集的官方来源未就此条款作出表述;这不代表该校没有相关规定。The official source collected here does not address this provision; this does not mean the university has no rule on it.

52 校中 38 所同样未作表述38 of 52 are likewise silent

边界Boundaries数据、版权与工具的限制limits on data, copyright and tools

数据与隐私Data & privacy

Data & privacy数据与隐私

哪些内容不得输入 AI 工具?What must not be entered into an AI tool?

一般性提醒General caution
Be mindful about the prompts you are feeding into your bot. AI tools raise issues of privacy and intellectual property

编码说明CODING NOTEAdvises caution with personal, FERPA-protected and others’ material in prompts; no category is barred outright.

52 校中 9 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:禁止上传受限数据(20/31)9 of 52 take this position · most common: Restricted data prohibited (20/31)

机构工具Institutional tools

Institutional tools机构工具

学校是否指定或提供 AI 工具?Does the institution designate or provide AI tools?

提供机构版工具Institution-provided tool主流口径MOST COMMON
available for FERPA-compliant use with your Barnard gBear credentials

编码说明CODING NOTEBarnard provides Gemini as a licensed, FERPA-compliant tool via campus gBear credentials.

52 校中 19 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:提供机构版工具(19/24)19 of 52 take this position · most common: Institution-provided tool (19/24)

理由Rationale规则的依据the stated basis for the rules

学习理由Learning rationale

Learning rationale学习理由

规则是否以“不得绕过应习得的能力”为依据?Are the rules grounded in not bypassing the skills to be learned?

明确以学习目标为据Explicit learning-objective rationale主流口径MOST COMMON
cannot replace the value of independent thinking or scholarship

编码说明CODING NOTERules are grounded in preserving independent thinking and scholarship rather than outsourcing it to AI.

52 校中 22 所与此相同 · 该条主流口径:明确以学习目标为据(22/37)22 of 52 take this position · most common: Explicit learning-objective rationale (22/37)

补充信息Further detail

要求披露的内容What must be disclosed

正式引注Formal citation

申请环节的 AI 政策AI in the application

admissions/37-Barnard.md

该校招生办公室就申请人使用 AI 的公开表述,以本科新生申请为主。英文为逐字原文,中文为整理者的分析。证据状态描述找到了什么材料,不是宽严等级;未说明不代表允许。What this university's admissions office says about applicants using AI, chiefly for first-year undergraduate applications. English passages are verbatim; the Chinese is the collector's analysis. The evidence status describes what material was found, not how strict the rules are; silence does not mean permission.

证据状态Evidence status 本科本人写作/真实性要求(未证实细化 AI 边界)Own-work and authenticity requirements; no detailed AI boundaries verified

Barnard本科招生审阅理念强调申请者自身经历、观点与写作呈现;所核验招生页未出现AI/ChatGPT专门准则。不能从课程学生指南推出申请使用权限。

52 所大学对照 →All 52 compared →

来源信息Source information

  • 采集记录Research record official source snapshots acquired at the exact UTC times listed below; reviewed for the 2026-09-26 college-fair expansion.
  • 适用范围Scope application; academic course rules and undergraduate-admission rules must not be interchanged.
  • 证据状态Evidence status authenticity-only. This is a classification of verified evidence, not a permission rating.

中文结论 / Findings

  • Barnard本科申请评估说明讨论申请人的个人背景和作文,以作文呈现真实个人信息;所核验页面没有明确AI工具使用边界。[S1-Q1][S1-Q2]
  • “真实表达”是招生建议与审阅背景,不是明示允许或禁止AI;CEP课程指南不能移植到招生。

Official sources and original excerpts

[S1] Application Review Philosophy: First-Year Applicants | Barnard College

[S1-Q1] English original (verbatim excerpt)

We review each applicant in the context of their school, community, and individual story.

[S1-Q2] English original (verbatim excerpt)

An effective essay should explore a specific idea about your personal or intellectual life

Limits and high-school adaptation

  • No verified undergraduate admission-specific AI boundary in the checked official source(s); targeted search backend returned quota/irrelevant results. Do not infer permission or prohibition.
  • 研究者建议(非该校官方申请许可):保留本人写作的构思和草稿;如学校未公布具体规则,应向招生办公室核实后再决定如何用AI,不应依据课程政策推断申请可用。

AI-boundary search record

  • site:barnard.edu/admissions "AI" "essay" application — Tavily quota 432; Google returned no extractable hits, Bing RSS returned irrelevant/off-domain hits; official admissions page saved and checked, AI-specific rule not verified. Search failure is not evidence of no rule.
  • site:barnard.edu/admissions application essay authentic own voice — Tavily quota 432; Google returned no extractable hits, Bing RSS returned irrelevant/off-domain hits; official admissions page saved and checked, AI-specific rule not verified. Search failure is not evidence of no rule.
  • site:barnard.edu/admissions ChatGPT generative artificial intelligence — Tavily quota 432; Google returned no extractable hits, Bing RSS returned irrelevant/off-domain hits; official admissions page saved and checked, AI-specific rule not verified. Search failure is not evidence of no rule.

官方原文The official text

univ/37-Barnard.md

本项目采集的该校官方文本。图谱引用的语句已高亮,句末标签注明对应条款,点击可返回该条款。The official text collected for this university. Sentences the atlas cites are highlighted; the tag after each names the provision it supports and links back to it.

来源信息Source information

  • 来源层级Source level混合来源 —— 文件同时含校级来源与更窄范围的来源Mixed — the file combines a university-wide source with a narrower one
  • 抽取审计Extraction audit轻微修正(审计员修正 1 处)Minor corrections (1 corrections by the auditor)
  • 官方来源Official sourceBarnard Center for Engaged Pedagogy
    https://cep.barnard.edu/student-guide-generative-ai
  • 官方来源Official sourceBarnard ATLIS
    https://atlis.barnard.edu/using-genai-barnard
  • 访问日期Accessed 2026-09-26
  • 格式说明Format note Relevant passages copied verbatim from saved copies of the official pages below; navigation and unrelated page content removed. Wording is retained; layout may differ from the webpage.
  • 适用范围Scope note [Student Guide to Generative AI | Barnard Center for Engaged Pedagogy] Barnard Center for Engaged Pedagogy — scope: students/coursework; authority: official-student-guidance. [Using GenAI at Barnard | Barnard College] Barnard ATLIS — scope: Barnard community / tool use; authority: campus-technology-advice.
  • 用途说明Use note Source material for comparison, not a translation or the school's final high-school policy.

Student Guide to Generative AI | Barnard Center for Engaged Pedagogy


Student Guide to Generative AI

Introduction

Hello there! This is the CEP’s student guide to generative AI tools, which accompanies our

Generative AI & the College Classroom resource for faculty. This guide was initially created by Barnard student interns at the CEP. Their aim was to provide students with guidance and critical understanding of generative AI and its impact on academic integrity and scholarship. The

ATLIS team provided extensive feedback on earlier drafts of this guide. The CEP acknowledges all the contributors who provided content and feedback to this guide. For the Academic Year 25-26, the CEP updated the guide to reflect the continuous evolution of Generative AI, specifically for students at Barnard College. Generative AI tools were also used in generating some content in this guide; however, all the content generated by AI was verified and edited.

What is generative AI?

Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence that creates new content, based on what it has learned from existing content.

Generative AI produces original outputs based on prompts or inputs. Popular examples include chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, and tools that compose music or videos. These systems use large language models (LLMs) which are trained on vast datasets to generate human-like responses or creative content. While powerful, generative AI also raises important questions about accuracy, ethics, and responsible use.

The process of learning from existing content is called “training,” and results in the creation of a statistical model. When given a prompt, generative AI uses this statistical model to predict what an expected response might be - and thus generate new content.

At the CEP, we collaborate with ATLIS, the Digital Humanities Center, and the CSC to provide training and consultations to guide faculty and students to use these tools responsibly.

Academic integrity

It is important to note that generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude cannot replace the value of independent thinking or scholarship学习理由Learning rationale.摘录Excerpt Each of your instructors may have their own position on what constitutes academic dishonesty with respect to these tools, but across disciplines, scholars agree that submitting AI-generated content as one’s own—or relying on it without proper attribution—violates principles of academic honesty披露要求Disclosure违规定性Integrity framing.课程规则优先Instructor override

Your instructors may also include participation, group work, and engagement with others as part of your final grade and as a key component of the learning in the course. Relying on generative AI as your sole interlocutor, or as a substitute for human interaction, could also be considered a form of academic dishonesty, if other forms of collaboration are expected. The Center for Engaged Pedagogy encourages you to talk to your professors and ask what their policies are if ever you are unsure.

Additionally, major citation styles (such as MLA and APA) now provide standards for acknowledging AI-generated content, which this resource outlines in detail. Though generative AI can quickly produce responses that seem authoritative, its outputs may be inaccurate or lack depth. Always verify information with credible sources and cultivate the expertise needed to assess AI-generated material critically.核实责任Verification duty

Limitations

Understanding the limitations of Generative AI, particularly language models like ChatGPT, is crucial when using them for learning purposes. AI tools are only as good as the prediction models and training data that they are built from. This means that an AI tool's knowledge is limited to what it was trained on, and an algorithm fed inaccurate training data will produce poor results. The initial training data for ChatGPT was sourced from resources across the internet, consisting of a vast amount of text from websites, articles, books, and other written materials. Additionally, examples of human conversations and dialogues for over 95+ languages were also fed to the learning model. Despite the vast amount of data available, we want to emphasize that there are still limitations to uses of ChatGPT be aware of. At the same time, some of the limitations that are specific to ChatGPT do not apply to other generative AI models. For example, other models can access the internet.

Biases and stereotypes

One significant limitation of generative AI tools is their susceptibility to biases and stereotypes present in the data used to train the model. These machine learning tools pool data from sources within the training data. In many ways, tools like ChatGPT offer a reflection of the prejudices and conscious and unconscious biases of humanity at large. For this reason, anyone using this technology should be aware that generative AI cannot necessarily recognize biases, and thus can amplify inaccuracies and biases as fact without disclosure.

Fake citations

Another serious limitation of ChatGPT, and similar technology, is the fact that it often “hallucinates” or makes up information. There are enormous ethical implications to this, and in the research and writing process, it is crucial that students understand that sources produced by ChatGPT can be entirely made up and not actually correspond to real sources.

Outdated responses

Although the responses of ChatGPT are generated in real-time, they may not always be up to date. The GPT 3.5 model was last trained in September 2021, meaning it may give outdated responses unless its training data is updated (the GPT 4 model, which requires a paid subscription, was last updated in April 2023) . Unlike search engines like Google which can provide the latest information, ChatGPT isn’t trained to search the internet and pull information while being used.

Limited ability to perform calculations

While you may have heard tools like ChatGPT compared to the calculator within the history of technological innovation, ChatGPT is actually not a calculator and cannot perform calculations

. If you ask ChatGPT to calculate something for you, you may notice that it is inconsistent in its responses. This is because it treats all numbers as text or string and is only making an educated guess on the correct answer. If you do ask ChatGPT to provide such an educated guess, we recommend comparing your results with a calculator or a tool designed to calculate equations.

How to effectively use ChatGPT with integrity

As a scholar, when using generative AI tools like ChatGPT, it is important to follow a checklist to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the information you obtain. Since ChatGPT does not provide citations and may formulate answers based on biased data, it is crucial to cross-reference any information obtained from the tool. Additionally, it is essential to analyze the information provided by the AI tool to draw your own conclusions, treating it as an interlocutor rather than as a reliable source of information. To limit the range of possible answers, it is recommended to be specific. If necessary, rephrasing or providing more context can also help ensure that the information obtained is relevant and useful. The more background knowledge you have as a researcher, the better your ability to draw your own conclusions and correctly identify misinformation within the AI generated responses.

General checklist when using generative AI tools

Did I cross-reference the information I’m using?

Does the manner in which I am using this generative AI tool allow for me to still come to my own conclusions?

Did I come to these findings prior to or after using generative AI?

Have I informed myself on the subject matter using other methods prior to using generative AI?

Toolkit for informed exploration

After reading the guide, this section is a resource you can come back to when you have questions about how you are engaging with Generative AI. It features simplified prompts, functions, and scenarios to facilitate informed academic exploration of Generative AI. Its aim is to streamline and make accessible the critical analysis of your interactions with tools like ChatGPT, Bing Copilot, and Bard AI.

While specific examples may refer to ChatGPT, the principles discussed here can be applied to any generative AI tool.

Give instructions not questions

Think of generative AI tools as an interlocutor or brainstorming tool. By providing ChatGPT specific instructions, you get targeted outputs, which is more beneficial than asking it to generate original content.

Example: Can you think of 5 titles for a [subject] paper on [insert context]?

Example: Can you organize these notes [input] into an outline?

Example: Can you create flashcards from these notes [input notes]?

Caution: Providing ChatGPT with one’s own original work can pose privacy concerns since it is a learning machine that takes in input it receives to produce information. While User inputs are not incorporated into the large language model, they are visible to and stored by OpenAI

, and may be used to develop future iterations of the tool.

Asking for prompts

Using Generative AI is an accessible way to get prompts and practice questions tailored to your learning objectives and areas of focus. Try some of these examples to see how it can assist you in preparing for exams or to overcome writer's block!

Example: Can you provide writing prompts about [subject matter]?

Example: Can you provide practice problems for [subject]?

Get specific with your instructions–add a quantity to your request, the genre of your request, or format.

Example: Can you provide 5 creative writing prompts about [subject matter]?

Example: Can you provide 10 multiple choice practice problems for [subject]?

Note: Sometimes ChatGPT will not produce the correct amount of prompts if the quantity asked is too high.

Get both sides of the argument

If you want a general sense of the different opinions on a topic, Generative AI can be useful in categorizing and summing up those perspectives for you.

Example: What are the different perspectives on X

?

Limitation: ChatGPT 3.5 has only been trained on data from up to September 2021, and ChatGPT 4.0 has only been trained on data from up to April2023. If you were to ask it about an event or subject that occurred in recent history, the model may produce an educated guess that could be inaccurate, or it may tell you that it cannot answer the question.

Summarize long articles

Generative AI can condense lengthy texts into concise summaries or bullet points, which can come in handy if you want to get an overview of what an article covers for instance.

Example: Could you summarize this article [Title] by [Author]?

Limitation: Note that when ChatGPT does not have information or enough context for the question or article inquiry, it will make up information and present it as part of the summary. This phenomenon is called “ hallucination

” in AI speak. Always cross-reference work that you use from generative AI.

Note: ChatGPT can’t do this accurately unless you copy + paste the article into the text box or have a plus subscription and use a plugin. Other AI models, however, can do this.

Ask for writing templates

AI-generated templates can be a starting point for common administrative writing tasks (e.g., cover letters), especially since you can request Generative AI to customize it so it fits individual needs.

Example: Can you provide me with a cover letter template?

Example: Can you write an email asking for a letter of recommendation?

Note: These templates can be more helpful the more you specify what you need the template for. It will also be important for you to make substantial edits within these templates to best suit your needs.

Ask for feedback

You can use Generative AI to get preliminary feedback on written work or code, which can be a useful step before peer review.

You can provide ChatGPT with an excerpt of your work or lines of code for it to analyze.

Caution: Providing ChatGPT with original work can pose privacy concerns since it is a learning machine that takes in input it receives to produce information.

Note: Feedback on code is limited by its inability to execute code, so any claim that a particular code will work is a “text-based” prediction.

Use it for language translation

Generative AI offers more nuanced and contextually accurate translations which makes it a more helpful way to quickly translate written text compared to other tools like Google Translate.

People have used ChatGPT in 95+ languages and ChatGPT can often provide scenarios and dialogues to help language learners

.

Example: Can you translate [phrase] in the context of an [event] into [language]?

Can you translate “I am sorry” in the context of a business meeting into Mandarin?

Example: Can you provide me with a sample scenario for [event/action] in [language]?

Can you provide me with a sample scenario for asking for the bill in Spanish?

Note: The scenarios ChatGPT provides may use language that is too formal in tone which might not reflect how current speakers of the language actually communicate with each other.

Note: The program does not work as well with less popular languages, and in any language can make up words. If you’re in a language learning class, it’s likely not appropriate to use ChatGPT this way.

Using GenAI at Barnard | Barnard College


Using GenAI at Barnard

Best Practices

Before using any generative AI tool, please note the following best practices:

Be informed regarding the terms of service of the tool you're using.

Material that you submit may become part of the program’s database—using the software also contributes to its development. The systems have different policies and methods to let you remove your material, so be sure to look for those instructions and to review the Terms of Service.

What rights does the tool owner have to your content (input or output)?

What is the privacy policy? Can anyone see what you've entered or generated?

Be mindful about the prompts you are feeding into your bot. AI tools raise issues of privacy and intellectual property数据与隐私Data & privacy

. We advise caution with the following:

Your own intellectual property (i.e., work you have created and for which you want to protect the copyright), unless you want it to be used to train an LLM, or you are able to disable the settings so that it does not use your work for training.

Student work, as this may be a violation of their intellectual property.

Personal or protected information, such as PII (personally Identifiable Information) or FERPA-protected data (e.g., names, addresses, birthdates, phone numbers).

Copyrighted works of others may be a risk, as the law is unsettled and what constitutes fair use is not clear.知识产权IP & copyright

Even software platforms that don’t use your content to train the product may collect your information or install cookies to track your other activity.

While you may choose to make this bargain to try out AI tools yourself, it can be more problematic to require students to sign up for tools that will track and use their private data.

Be aware that generative AI can make mistakes or provide inaccurate information, called hallucinations.

Critically evaluate the output you're given, and check facts against another source when appropriate. Although a generative AI tool might cite sources, these citations are not always accurate.

Adhere to relevant generative AI policies for the work you're doing.

For students, this means understanding your course AI policy and only using generative AI for academic work when it is allowed by your instructor默认规则Default rule. If you are unsure of the course policy, please clarify with your instructor before proceeding. For faculty and staff, this includes complying with any guidelines or policies from academic publications or professional associations.

Available Tools

Tools Available for the Barnard Community

The below tools are available through our existing partnerships with Google and Adobe.

Tool

Description

Resources

Gemini

Generative AI chatbot from Google, available for FERPA-compliant use with your Barnard gBear credentials机构工具Institutional tools.

Getting Started with Gemini

Notebook LM

Research and note-taking focused AI tool from Google, available for FERPA-compliant use with your Barnard gBear credentials.

Getting Started with NotebookLM

Adobe Firefly

Image generation platform available for faculty and staff through Barnard Adobe accounts. Students can sign up for a free Adobe account that will provide some access to the platform.

Adobe Firefly Resource Hub

Please note that many other academic technology tools at Barnard - such as Padlet and Yellowdig - now incorporate Generative AI features.

ChatGPT Teams Pilot Program

ATLIS has a pilot program for faculty and instructional staff who are interested in access to a ChatGPT Team account. A ChatGPT Team account has the same features as a ChatGPT Pro account - including access to image generation, custom GPT creation, advanced data analysis tools, and advanced voice capabilities - with additional privacy protections for your data. By default, your data will not be shared with OpenAI or used to train future versions of ChatGPT. Because we only have a limited number of accounts available, eligibility is limited: If you would like to participate, please send an email to atlis@barnard.edu and we'll let you know the next steps. ​​​​

Beyond What's Available at Barnard: Other Generative AI Tools

There's an ever-growing array of both free and paid generative AI tools, from all-purpose chatbots to tools specifically designed to aid with teaching and learning. While our team is familiar with some of these, we unfortunately cannot offer support for every generative AI tool. If you choose to use something that isn't formally supported by Barnard, please be extra careful when thinking through data and privacy protections. If there is a specific tool you're interested in using for a course or research project, please reach out to us at atlis@barnard.edu or request a consultation.

以下为整理者所写的高中适用要点,非该校原文,不作为任何条款的依据。Below: the collector’s notes on application to high school — not the university’s text, and not used as evidence for any provision.

High-school adaptation takeaways

  • 研究者建议(非校方新增规则):高中课程逐项明确AI使用范围与披露方式;本人负责思考和核验;谨慎处理隐私及第三方作品。此建议不适用于推定该校本科招生许可。