The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world's top-ranking universities
Open accessAbstract
The public release of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools (e,g. ChatGPT) has had a disruptive effect on the assessment practices of higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide. Concerns have largely been associated with academic integrity, cheating and plagiarism. HEIs have had to develop guidelines in response to GAI. As many of these guidelines were developed in haste and could affect a large number of instructors and students, there is a need to examine their content, coverage and suitability. This review examines the extent to which the world's 50 top-ranking HEIs have developed or modified their assessment guidelines to address GAI use and, where guidelines exist, the primary content and advice given to guide instructors in their GAI assessment design and practices. The findings show that just under half of the institutions have developed publicly available guidelines. The guidelines cover three main areas: academic integrity, advice on assessment design, and communicating with students. Among the suggestions for teachers on assessment design, two appear particularly pertinent in helping develop effective assessment tasks and developing learners’ AI-literacy: first, running assessment tasks through GAI to check the extent to which the tool can accomplish the task and, second, having students use GAI as part of the assessment process. Overall, the review suggests that HEIs have come to accept the use of GAI and drafted assessment guidelines to advise instructors on its use. In the article, we argue that it may be beneficial to embrace GAI as a part of the assessment process since this is the reality of today's educational and job landscape. This will require instructors to develop a new competence - generative artificial intelligence assessment literacy - which is conceptualised in this article.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Despite these technological advancements, a growing body of evidence indicates that the Integration of AI into language pedagogy remains superficial and inconsistent (Chan & Tsi, 2024;Moorhouse et al., 2023).”
From Adoption and Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Teaching: Multi-Institutional Analysis of Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“Moorhouse et al. (2023) examined institutional AI policies at leading universities and found that most frameworks concentrated on regulatory responses (e.g., academic integrity policies) rather than pedagogical enablement.”
From Adoption and Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Teaching: Multi-Institutional Analysis of Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al. (2023)
In the citing paper
“aligning with recent studies that have reported limited faculty adoption of AI tools in higher education (Chan & Tsi, 2023;Moorhouse et al., 2023).”
From Adoption and Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Foreign Language Teaching: Multi-Institutional Analysis of Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“Moorhouse, Yeo, and Wan (2023) analysed 50 leading global higher education institutions and found that 57% had guidelines for AI use, primarily advising students to acknowledge AI use or cite AI-generated content.”
From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse, Yeo, and Wan 2023
In the citing paper
“Moorhouse et al.'s (2023) findings indicate that nearly half of the world's top 50 universities have published guidelines focusing on academic integrity, assessment design advice, and student communication.”
From Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania (2024) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“However, the authors pointed out that as these guidelines have been developed rapidly, it is likely that many of the suggestions have not been sufficiently tested.”
From AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“For example, the early review conducted by Moorhouse et al. [12] found that 23 out of the 50 top-ranking universities have developed publicly available guidelines by June 2023, which addressed the potential influence of GenAI on three main areas: academic integrity, advice on assessment design, and communicating with students.”
From AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Despite significant uncertainty about the pros and cons of incorporating GenAI in education, many universities have published policies and guidelines, aiming to promote responsible and beneficial AI usage.”
From AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“English-speaking countries in the Global North tend to be ranked higher in various university rankings [12].”
From AI Governance in Higher Education: Case Studies of Guidance at Big Ten Universities (2024) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Concerns over AI-generated misinformation and its potential misuse in assessments underscore the need for updated academic policies and enhanced detection mecha -nisms [ 30-32 ].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“Studies have revealed that traditional plagiarism detection tools, such as Turnitin, are ineffective in identifying AI-gen -erated content, often yielding false positives or negatives [ 31, 60, 85, 89, 90 ].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“Without such policies, institutions risk ethical violations, academic dishonesty, and a lack of uniformity in AI integration within education [ 31 ].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“One approach involves improving AI detec -tion tools to accurately identify AI-generated content while reducing false positives and negatives that may affect aca -demic integrity enforcement [ 31, 54, 57, 66, 91, 106].”
From Redefining student assessment in AI-infused learning environments: a systematic review of challenges and strategies for academic integrity (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“Moorhouse, Yeo [38] found that less than half of the reviewed universities have developed publicly accessible guidelines addressing GenAI use.”
From Generative AI in Higher Education: Balancing Innovation and Integrity (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse, Yeo [38]
In the citing paper
“Prior empirical audits of university AI governance have focused on policy presence among elite or researchintensive samples [47, 50, 76, 80] (Table 2, Appendix B), examining primarily the pedagogical dimension: how universities communicate expectations about AI use in coursework.”
From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Most recently, an investigation similar to this one was done of the GenAI policies of the world's 50 top-ranking HEIs [33] and found that guidance generally covers 'academic integrity, advice on assessment design and communicating with students.'”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Moorhouse et al also find that HEIs have largely come to embrace GenAI, a position which the authors themselves advocate.”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Perhaps, partly as a consequence, there seems to be somewhat of a shift away from this combative approach to GenAI [33].”
From Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Following the public release of ChatGPT, many universities initially adopted a cautious, wait-and-see approach (Wang, Dang, Wu and Mac, 2023; Moorhouse, Yeo and Wan, 2023; Cheng and YIM, 2024).”
From Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse, Yeo and Wan, 2023
In the citing paper
“While previous studies have examined the roles of faculty and students in GAI adoption (Moorhouse et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023), our research provided a more detailed perspective by also considering administrators' roles, offering insights into the comprehensive stakeholder responsibilities in GAI's context.”
From Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“Our findings highlighted a universal concern for academic integrity and the ethical use of AI, underscoring institutions' dedication to maintaining core educational values amidst technological progress (Moorhouse et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023).”
From Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines (2025) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“Recent research suggests that tools like ChatGPT can aid college students in completing tasks such as essay and proposal writing and take-home examinations, raising concerns about increased risks of cheating and undermining academic integrity (Chiu et al, 2023; Moorhouse et al., 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“GenAI placed a big challenge on academic integrity in student learning and development (Chiu, 2024; Moorhouse et al., 2023; Gou & Wang, 2023).”
From A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Moorhouse et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“The primary concern lies in the potential compromise to academic integrity presented by AI essay-writing systems, particularly ChatGPT.”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“Recent studies have brought to light the potential for students to exploit ChatGPT for academic dishonesty.”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“There is an apprehension that students might submit essays that do not authentically represent their work, thus contravening ethical standards within educational institutions [4,6].”
From ChatGPT for Academic Purposes: Survey Among Undergraduate Healthcare Students in Malaysia (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
Citations
Cites
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079
Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2003) · Cited by 2,926
How Learning Works : Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching
Ambrose, S. A. (2010) · Cited by 2,413
Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review
Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041 · Cited by 2,205
Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 · Cited by 2,010
ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?
(2023) · Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching · doi:10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9 · Cited by 1,806
A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3 · Cited by 1,577
Ethics of AI in Education: Towards a Community-Wide Framework
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1 · Cited by 1,437
ChatGPT for Language Teaching and Learning
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/00336882231162868 · Cited by 1,371
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Hwang, 2023, Editorial position paper: exploring the potential of generative artificial intelligence in education: applications, challenges, and future research directions, Educ. Technol. Soc., 26
- Chu, 2022, Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in higher education: a systematic review of the top 50 most-cited articles, Australas. J. Educ. Technol., 38, 22
- Kohnke, 2023, Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors, Comput. Educ.: Artif., 5, 100156
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–460 of 460
Htut, W. Y., Naing, T. T., & Tun, P. W. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1108/aiie-06-2025-0125
Generative AI and Authentic Assessment in Higher Education: Evidence from Ghanaian Universities
Obeng-Appiah, Y. (2026) · International Social Sciences and Education Journal · doi:10.61424/issej.v4i3.993
Cultivating Critical Thinking With Hybrid Intelligence in Undergraduate STEM
Li, Y., Wu, J., & Yang, Z. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7902-9.ch009
From Allowed to Embedded: Student Perceptions of AI Use Across Engineering Courses
Borowczak, M., & Borowczak, M. (2026) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--59546
Inteligencia artificial y la transformación de la planificación docente para Educación Básica
Cepeda, L. A. V., Toalombo, P. V. C., Guato, A. R. T., & Cruz, V. L. C. D. L. (2026) · Revista Ciencia Innovadora · doi:10.64422/rci.v4n3.2026.255
Demir, B., & Uygun, E. (2026) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2026.105802
Joung, E., Yeo, H. T., Park, B. J., & Kang, M. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10723576/v1
Fute, A. Z., Amihere, A., & Kangwa, D. (2026) · Open Learning The Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning · doi:10.1080/02680513.2026.2722975
What is Happening to Critical Thinking in University Students in the Era of Artificial Intelligence?
Munar, L. S., Peláez, C. A., Solano, A. F., G., R. J. O., & Ramírez-Moreno, D. F. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-31223-5_23
Torres-Vásquez, L., & Christie, D. E. V. (2026) · Ampersand · doi:10.1016/j.amper.2026.100283
Munoz, A., Hinchcliff, M., Langfield, C. T., & Rogerson, A. M. (2026) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-026-00235-9
Mendes, M. I., António, N., & Guerreiro, S. (2026) · International Journal of Information Management Data Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jjimei.2026.100444
Mansory, M. (2026) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103442
When teachers use AI in grading and feedback: how do, and how should, universities respond?
Luo, J., & Yin, X. (2026) · Policy Reviews in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/23322969.2026.2726842
Detecting the undetectable? Reassessing academic misconduct procedures in the era of generative AI
Teichmann, F. M. J. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2728036
Nie, J., Zhang, Z., Lu, X., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1934632 · Cited by 3
Student Perceptions of EAP Assessment Methods at a Sino-British University in the Age of AI
Wang, J., & Zhang, S. (2026) · UK-China Teaching, Learning, and Educational Technology (TILE-TEC) · doi:10.1109/tile-tec70450.2026.11682565
Klapproth, F. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16091507
Paulett, J. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-32732-1_18
Generative AI Use Patterns and Ethical Dilemmas among Pre-Service Teachers
Andayani, M. S. L., & Damayanthi, L. P. E. (2026) · Jurnal Riset dan Inovasi Pembelajaran · doi:10.51574/jrip.v6i2.5619
Hu, P. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1900190 · Cited by 1
Whose voices count? Multilingualism, AI policy, and equity at Hispanic-Serving institutions
Tian, Z., & Christiansen, M. S. (2026) · Language Policy · doi:10.1007/s10993-026-09803-8
GenAI-assisted language teaching (GenAILT): Approach, design, and procedure
Lin, K. C., & Richards, J. C. (2026) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2026.104162
Educators’ and students’ views on the impact of artificial intelligence in higher education
Ang, C. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-02174-6
Mensah, L. K., Gyimah, F. O., Baffour-Koduah, D., Mutawakil, A.-R., & Nyamekye, E. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/8086861
Dahal, N., Hasan, M. K., & Islam, M. T. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1948064
Senkus, P. J., Szelągowski, M., Ciachorowski, D., Ludwicki, T., & Szymański, G. (2026) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-36710-5_26
Ethical Aspects of University Teachers Using GenAI: Cross-National Survey Results
Prohorovs, A., Tsaryk, O., & Sokol, M. (2026) · International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies (ACIT) · doi:10.1109/acit69831.2026.11700230
Principles without provisions? Unpacking assessment in higher education AI policies
Egloffstein, M., & Heil, J. (2026) · Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2026.2740061
Vinh, L. Q., & Lan, N. N. C. (2026) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.25.9.21
Villanueva, G. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2740764
Incorporación de la IA generativa en el bachillerato: perspectiva de la NEM y el modelo TPACK
Mendoza, K. K. R., & Cetzal, R. S. P. (2026) · doi:10.61728/ae26002163
Making Ethical AI Teachable: Distributed Accountability in Language Teacher Education
Kohnke, L. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.70383
Sanavi, R. V., Mohammadi, M., & Zarrabi, M. (2026) · English language teaching · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-9805-2_28
Chen, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheah, K. S. L., & Nasir, N. Y. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1962323
Institutional Policies for AI and Prompt Literacy
Gupta, D. K., Shokhista, K., Sadoqat, S., Almardanovna, S. D., Vakhabov, B., & ABDULLAEVA, N. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-4664-7.ch007
Lim, W. M. (2026) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2026.101553
FURAT, F. (2026) · Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.32329/uad.1975935
Condom, M. F. I., Ion, G., Pirovino, L., & Barrobés, M. (2026) · Journal of Adult Learning Knowledge and Innovation · doi:10.1556/2059.2026.00152
Alzahrani, M., Aldubayyan, F. A., & Alshabi, I. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1926666
From Cheating Prevention to Integrity Innovation in AI-Based Assessment
Nandal, N., Chahal, D., -, R. D., Joshi, R., & Yadav, S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8939-4.ch010
Khlaif, Z. N., Hamamra, B. T., Farran, H. K., & Salama, N. (2026) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-026-09768-7
ASLAN, S. A., Ayaz, A., Özyurt, Ö., & Aslan, A. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261492792
Prácticas académicas significativas y de impacto en la educación virtual e híbrida
Alina, E., Montoya, E. A. H., & Capilla, A. (2026) · doi:10.22490/unad.9786287857650
Integrating Metacognitive Scaffolding with Generative AI for Course Selection: An Experimental Study
Zhang, C., Wei, W., & Hu, X. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt68022.2026.00140
AI-enabled assessment: framework, perspective and educational outcomes
Ogunleye, B., Olayinka, O., Zakariyyah, K. I., Ajao, O., & Sharma, H. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2747507
Wang, K., Zhou, C., Leng, Y., Li, J., Xu, H., Wang, X., & Guo, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1929777
Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education—Ethical Policies Mapping
Penev, K., Slavov, V., & Deliyski, R. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16101694
Aggarwal, K., Ravi, R., Gunjawate, D. R., Yerraguntla, K., & Kumar, K. (2026) · Work · doi:10.1177/10519815261491757
Kumari, K. T., Syed, F. A., Nagoji, A., & Savitha, J. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8740-6.ch013
van Rensburg, J. J. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2744231
Figueredo, Ó. R. B., Meza-Jaque, J., & Peréz, L. (2026) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.182491.2
Molina, O. A. M., Tomalá, A. M. V., Amaro, L. E. H., & Villegas, R. A. M. (2026) · Visión Académica · doi:10.70577/vk70zn70
Bağcivan, E. (2026) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub1557.c6364
Doctoral researchers’ Generative AI use and research-integrity concerns: a cross-context study
Zhuang, Y. (2026) · Educational Studies · doi:10.1080/03055698.2026.2751067
AI policy as de facto language policy: towards AI policy literacy for the language education sector
Wang, D., & Bianco, J. L. (2026) · Language Policy · doi:10.1007/s10993-026-09814-5
Developing a practical student guide for responsible and reflective use of GenAI in higher education
Khan, Z. R., Krásničan, V., & Hemnani, N. (2026) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-026-00237-7
Responsible GenAI Augmentation and Cognitive Agency in Higher Education
Sukprasert, A., & Phothong, L. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su182110831
Quality of Authentic Assessment in Digital Marketing Education in the GenAI Era
Stefani, A., & Vamvatsikou, E. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17111075
Metadata
- Authors
- Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
- SEAMEO Regional Language Centre (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Moorhouse, Benjamin Luke
- Venue
- Computers and Education Open
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-12
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 100151
- ISSN
- 2666-5573 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387873511
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 192 · 2025: 170 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 108.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers and Education Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- generative AI, ChatGPT, evaluation guidelines, higher education, academic integrity, cheating, plagiarism, assessment design, AI literacy, student communication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
