University of North Texas.

Detection status: Turnitin AI detection reports in Canvas, documented by DSI CLEAR and listed by the Office of Academic Integrity; UNT Libraries states a detection report alone "is not sufficient evidence" for a violation
Office in these sources: Office of Academic Integrity · 940-565-4259 · academic.integrity@unt.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: No ombuds office located. UNT publishes Peer Advocates, students employed by the Dean of Students Office and Student Conduct and Community Standards, who “provide free, private consultations to students to help them prepare for conduct meetings.” Appointments through Student Conduct and Community Standards, 940-565-2039 · studentaffairs.unt.edu — Peer Advocates
Sources last checked: Aug 25, 2026

Reproduced from the institution’s own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

UNT's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case. UNT's governing document is Policy 06.003, Student Academic Integrity; it contains no artificial-intelligence category, and UNT's Office of Academic Integrity states that unauthorized AI use is charged as cheating through the policy's "unauthorized assistance" language, which means the course-level rule set by an instructor is among the relevant sources for any particular situation. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

AI detection is in use at UNT — and UNT publishes limits on what it proves

UNT's LMS support pages describe the deployment (page's own updated_time Jul 29, 2025; retrieved Aug 23, 2026):

"UNT has two Turnitin options available in Canvas for plagiarism detection: Turnitin External Tool Integration (LTI 1.3) and Plagiarism Review." "The Turnitin Feedback Studio integration should be used when you would like to not only generate originality and AI detection reports, but would also like to use the full suite of Turnitin Feedback Studio and grading tools…" "Our license agreement with Turnitin allows it to be used exclusively in classes offered as part of UNT's curriculum and exclusively for the purpose of submitting student work for evaluation." "Turnitin does not decide if a paper has been plagiarized but instead provides the faculty member with a report… The faculty member ultimately decides if a paper has been plagiarized."

Source: Turnitin — UNT LMS Support. The same page notes a second product: "UNT has recently purchased a license for iThenticate for graduate students enrolled in thesis/dissertation and writing intensive courses."

UNT's Division of Digital Strategy and Innovation publishes the instructor workflow, including the risk bands a submission can be flagged with (page's own updated_time Jan 28, 2026; retrieved Aug 23, 2026):

"Follow these instructions on how to use Turnitin in Canvas to identify if assignment content has been plagiarized or generated by AI. The AI writing detection model may not always be accurate (it may misidentify both human and AI-generated text) so it should not be used as the sole basis for adverse actions against a student. It takes further scrutiny and human judgment in conjunction with an organization's application of its specific academic policies to determine whether any academic misconduct has occurred." "Turnitin will flag submissions in either green (low risk); yellow (medium risk), or red (high risk)."

Source: Using Turnitin to check for plagiarized / AI-generated content — DSI CLEAR. UNT's Office of Academic Integrity (page's own updated_time Apr 29, 2026; retrieved Aug 23, 2026) lists that CLEAR page, along with Turnitin's own AI-writing-detection materials, among its Faculty Resources.

UNT also publishes a statement about what a detector report is worth in its process. From UNT Libraries' artificial-intelligence guide, on the page for faculty (page dated "Last Updated: Jul 23, 2026"; retrieved Aug 23, 2026):

"All course syllabi at UNT should include clear guidance as to permissible use of AI. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of AI technologies and the inadequacy of detection tools, a detection report alone (such as Turnitin) is not sufficient evidence for a violation of the university's academic integrity policy."

Source: AI for Faculty — UNT Libraries. That page is a library research guide rather than the Office of Academic Integrity or the policy itself, and part of the surrounding sample-statement block credits another institution's library; the sentence above is framed in UNT's own terms ("All course syllabi at UNT"). Where in UNT's hierarchy it sits is not determined here. No statement of the same kind was located on the Office of Academic Integrity's pages or in Policy 06.003, neither of which mentions detection tools at all.

On how AI use is charged, the Office of Academic Integrity's faculty FAQ states (page's own updated_time Oct 1, 2025; retrieved Aug 23, 2026): "Based on the Student Academic Integrity Policy (UNT Policy 6.003), any form of 'unauthorized assistance' constitutes cheating. If the use of artificial intelligence is not authorized for the assignment in question, the violation is 'cheating'." Source: Academic Integrity FAQ for Faculty.

02Published process

What UNT's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: “A student may be accompanied by an advisor, but the student must represent them self at the conference.” The policy adds: “If a student intends to be accompanied by an attorney, the student must notify the Office for Academic Integrity no later than two (2) days prior to the conference so that the University can have a representative from the Office of General Counsel present.” — UNT Policy 06.003, Student Academic Integrity, on the route for major or repeat allegations (policy page records Date issued 09/02/2009 and a last update of 02/17/2025; retrieved Aug 23, 2026) · UNT Policy 06.003
What follows on the record: “Your Academic Integrity records are only accessible by the Academic Integrity Officers and their assistant. No information about academic integrity will appear on your transcript.” Policy 06.003 states one exception: “Revocation of Degree — The student’s official and unofficial transcript may reflect that revocation of degree assessed as an academic misconduct penalty.” — Academic Integrity FAQ for Students (page’s own updated_time Oct 1, 2025; retrieved Aug 23, 2026) · Academic Integrity FAQ for Students · UNT Policy 06.003

The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution’s own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.

From UNT Policy 06.003, Student Academic Integrity (policy page records "Date issued 09/02/2009" and a last update of 02/17/2025, "Review without revision"; retrieved Aug 23, 2026):

"In the investigation and resolution of allegations of student academic dishonesty, the University's actions are intended to be corrective, educationally sound, fundamentally fair, and based on reliable evidence." "'Preponderance of the Evidence,' in this policy, means standard of review in the student appeal process that evaluates whether allegations are more likely to be true than not true." "'Day,' in this policy, means Monday through Friday during regular University business hours (8a.m to 5:00p.m.)." "An instructor who suspects that a student has engaged in an act of academic misconduct must make a good faith effort to contact the student in writing as soon as possible after detecting the suspected academic dishonesty. The instructor's initial communication should be sent to the student's University-assigned email address, and should convey the details of the suspected academic misconduct in sufficient detail to allow the student to prepare a written response, and direct the student to schedule an in-person conference with the instructor…" "If the student responds to the instructor's written notice of suspected academic misconduct, an in-person conference with the instructor should be scheduled. As part of the conference, the instructor will review all the evidence or information relevant to the suspected act of academic dishonesty and provide the student a full opportunity to respond." "If the student does not respond to the instructor's written communication within five (5) days of the instructor sending the email, the instructor may assess academic penalties in-line with the suspected academic dishonesty."

On sanctions and what can be challenged:

"Admonition, Educational Assignment, Partial or No Credit for an Assignment or Assessment, Lower Final Course Grade, Course Failure, Probation, Suspension, Expulsion, and Revocation of Degree. Probation, Suspension, Expulsion, and Revocation of Degree may only be handed out by the AIO with the final decision on appeal by the provost or designee, the other penalties may be assigned by the instructor. Admonitions and educational assignments are not appealable."

On the appeal route for a single violation, which ends inside the academic department:

"the student may submit a written appeal to the instructor's department chair within five (5) days of the date on the instructor's written decision" "The decision of the chair on this issue is final." "The decision of the department chair is final."

On the route for major or repeat allegations, which runs through the Academic Integrity Officer and ends with the provost:

"A student may be accompanied by an advisor, but the student must represent them self at the conference. If a student intends to be accompanied by an attorney, the student must notify the Office for Academic Integrity no later than two (2) days prior to the conference so that the University can have a representative from the Office of General Counsel present." "The decision of the provost or designee is final." "Should a student's appeal of an academic misconduct penalty extend beyond the grade submission deadline for the semester of the incident, the student will be assigned a grade that reflects the recommended penalty. Upon conclusion of the appeal process, the student's grade will be adjusted accordingly (penalty removed) based upon the outcome of the appeal." "A student and the appropriate decision-making authority may mutually agree to extend an expressed timeframe for a reasonable period of time."

Sources: UNT Policy 06.003, Student Academic Integrity and its full text (PDF). The policy also sets the windows for each stage of review — five days to appeal to the chair, ten days for a chair decision, fifteen days for a faculty committee's recommendation and five more for the chair's filing, five days to appeal an AIO decision to the provost, and ten or fifteen days for the provost's decision depending on the route — and those windows are quoted here from the policy, not calculated for any reader.

On records, UNT's student FAQ states (page's own updated_time Oct 1, 2025; retrieved Aug 23, 2026): "Your Academic Integrity records are only accessible by the Academic Integrity Officers and their assistant. No information about academic integrity will appear on your transcript." Policy 06.003 states one exception, for the most severe sanction: "Revocation of Degree — The student's official and unofficial transcript may reflect that revocation of degree assessed as an academic misconduct penalty." Source: Academic Integrity FAQ for Students. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Policy 06.003, Student Academic Integrity (landing page and revision history)	policy.unt.edu/policy/06-003
Policy 06.003 full text (PDF)	policy.unt.edu/sites/default/files/06.003 Student Academic Integrity.pdf
Office of Academic Integrity	vpaa.unt.edu/ss/integrity/index.html
Academic Integrity FAQ for Students	vpaa.unt.edu/ss/integrity/faq-students.html
Academic Integrity FAQ for Faculty	vpaa.unt.edu/ss/integrity/faq-faculty.html
Turnitin in Canvas (LMS support)	lms.unt.edu/supported_tech/turnitin.html
Using Turnitin to check for plagiarized / AI-generated content (DSI CLEAR)	digitalstrategy.unt.edu/clear/approved_and_supported_technologies/using-turnitin-check-plagiarized-ai-generated-content.html
AI Resource Hub (DSI CLEAR)	digitalstrategy.unt.edu/clear/ai-resource-hub/index.html
AI for Faculty (UNT Libraries research guide)	guides.library.unt.edu/artificial-intelligence/AIfaculty
Office of Academic Integrity contact	academic.integrity@unt.edu · 940-565-4259 · Academic Integrity Administrator Chelsea Bradshaw, chelsea.bradshaw@unt.edu, 940-369-7006 (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 23, 2026)
Peer Advocates (conduct-meeting preparation; housed in the Dean of Students Office and Student Conduct and Community Standards)	Appointments via Student Conduct and Community Standards, 940-565-2039 · studentaffairs.unt.edu — Respondent Advisors and Peer Advocates (retrieved Aug 23, 2026)

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-08-23 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the policy.unt.edu, vpaa.unt.edu, lms.unt.edu, digitalstrategy.unt.edu and guides.library.unt.edu pages linked beside them. Source dates where published: Jul 29, 2025 (LMS Turnitin page), Jan 28, 2026 (DSI CLEAR Turnitin page), Apr 29, 2026 (Office of Academic Integrity), Oct 1, 2025 (both FAQs), Jul 23, 2026 (UNT Libraries AI guide, on-page "Last Updated"); Policy 06.003 records "Date issued 09/02/2009" with a 02/17/2025 review without revision, and its PDF footer shows an effective date of 03/07/2017 with revisions in 2019 and 2025. Captured first-party: the two Canvas Turnitin integrations and the AI-detection reports, the license restriction, the risk-band flagging, the Office of Academic Integrity's listing of AI-detection materials as faculty resources, the UNT Libraries sentence on a detection report alone, the "unauthorized assistance" charging route, the preponderance definition, the notification and conference sequence, the sanctions list, the non-appealability of admonitions and educational assignments, the appeal windows and finality statements, the advisor and attorney provisions, and the transcript statements. Noted without resolution: the "detection report alone is not sufficient evidence" sentence appears on a UNT Libraries research guide, and the same page's sample-statement block credits another institution's library for part of its content; the sentence is quoted with that provenance stated rather than treated as policy. Deliberately omitted: DSI CLEAR's April 2026 faculty workshop listing on the limits of AI detection, which is an event description rather than a statement of institutional position; it was located but is not quoted. Also noted: the older clear.unt.edu addresses for the CLEAR pages now redirect or return errors, so the digitalstrategy.unt.edu paths are the ones cited. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-24). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-23 — Ombuds capture added this date: no ombuds office was located at UNT. UNT does publish Peer Advocates who help students prepare for conduct meetings and answer questions about the conduct process; UNT describes these consultations as “private” rather than confidential, and the advocates are housed within the same offices that administer conduct, so UNT's own wording is reproduced without characterizing the service further. The separate Respondent Advocate role described on the same page applies to sexual-misconduct matters. Sources re-fetched and compared this date; automated pass, not a human review.

2026-08-23 — Section 02 now opens with the two questions an adviser raises first. Both answers were already quoted in this page’s section-02 prose — the advisor provision from Policy 06.003, the records answer from the student FAQ with the policy’s degree-revocation exception — and were hoisted into the block rather than re-fetched; the prose below is unchanged, and the dates shown are the dates this page already recorded. Automated pass; no human review is claimed for this entry.

2026-08-24 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; automated pass, not a human review. Unchanged and verbatim: the LMS Turnitin support page, the DSI CLEAR Turnitin/AI-detection page, the UNT Libraries AI for Faculty guide (still Last Updated Jul 23, 2026, still crediting UAB Libraries for part of its sample-statement content), the Office of Academic Integrity page, the Academic Integrity FAQ for Faculty and for Students, Policy 06.003's landing page (revision history unchanged: issued 09/02/2009, reviewed without revision 02/17/2025), and the full Policy 06.003 PDF, re-read start to finish — every quotation on this page, including the advisor/attorney provision, the single-violation and multiple/major-violation sequences, the sanctions list, the appeal windows at each stage, and the transcript/revocation language, matches the current PDF text exactly. NOTED, NOT RESOLVED: the Academic Integrity FAQ for Students now directs contact questions to "the Academic Integrity Administrator" linked to olivia.martinez@unt.edu, while the Office of Academic Integrity's own landing page separately names Chelsea Bradshaw, chelsea.bradshaw@unt.edu, 940-369-7006 as the Academic Integrity Administrator. The two UNT pages do not agree on who currently holds this title; this page retains the landing page's fuller, named listing (email and phone both published there) and records the FAQ page's differing link for a manual check. The Peer Advocates page confirmed unchanged, including the Respondent Advocate role's separate scope (sexual-misconduct matters only, not academic-integrity meetings). Archive captures: still pending — Save Page Now (web.archive.org/save) remains unreachable from this run environment. Convention backfill: the two prior appearances of hello@gatheredwork.com on this page (footer and this log) are now live mailto links.

2026-08-25 — Targeted re-check of the outstanding contact discrepancy; automated pass, not a human review. Both UNT pages were re-fetched and read against each other this date, and the discrepancy stands unresolved: the Office of Academic Integrity landing page still names Chelsea Bradshaw as Academic Integrity Administrator with chelsea.bradshaw@unt.edu and 940-369-7006, while the Academic Integrity FAQ for Students still links the words “Academic Integrity Administrator” to olivia.martinez@unt.edu without naming a person. Neither page has changed since the Aug 24 pass; this page continues to publish the landing page's fuller listing, which is the only one of the two that names a person and publishes a phone number, and the FAQ's differing link remains recorded here for a manual check rather than reconciled. Also re-confirmed unchanged on the landing page this date: the shared office address academic.integrity@unt.edu, the honor-code text, the college-by-college liaison table, and the faculty-resources list that includes UNT CLEAR's Turnitin plagiarism/AI-generated-content page — the last of which is the corroboration that the detection materials this page cites are still linked from the Office of Academic Integrity itself. FALSE LEAD RECORDED SO IT IS NOT CHASED AGAIN. A web search run during this review returned a summary asserting that UNT's Academic Integrity Administrator is “Katie McGovern” at 940-565-4803. Neither that name nor that number appears anywhere on the office's own pages, which were read in full this date; 940-565-4259 is the Student Success unit number published in the site footer, not a number for that role. The search summary is unsupported first-party and was disregarded, exactly as an earlier review disregarded a search summary that misdescribed another institution's appeal windows. Nothing on this page was changed on the strength of it. Archive captures: still pending. Save Page Now could not be reached from this run environment, whose fetching is restricted to addresses already surfaced in the run.

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.