## 3 Materials and Methods
### Annotation Framework and Theoretical Foundations
#### 3.2.2 Annotation of Racism/Xenophobia  
Racism covers racial offenses, tribalism, regionalism, xenophobia, and nativism--manifesting as hostility toward immigrants, refugees, and minority groups based on ethnicity, region, skin color, or physical traits [64]. Xenophobia is defined as fear or animosity towards those seen as outsiders, often driven by beliefs in cultural or national purity and threats to group identity [65].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l} \hline \hline
**English Translation** \\ \hline \textless{Context}\textgreater{} I wanted to say Italian women but I was overcome with emotion. Italian women and Spanish men. Slovenia has the most beautiful women, no matter what that website says. \\ \hline \textless{Context}\textgreater{} Slovenian and Czech ones... and good, cheap beer on top of that. \\ \hline \textless{}Turn being annotated\textgreater{} Slovenian evidence to support this. Czechoslovakia never had to split. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: The sexist assumptions about gender in the last turn become apparent only when considering the argumentative progression across the previous turns. Annotation relies on dialogical context, not isolated statements.  
\end{table}
Table 5: _Cont._Based on these broad definitions, annotators were guided to categorize racist and xenophobic content according to specific manifestations:  
* Affect: Negative emotions and reactions, particularly those expressing hate or anger based on racial, ethnic, or religious differences. Example: \"Take your damn piece of pizza and go back to Africa\".
* Evaluation: Negative judgments regarding inherent characteristics attributed to specific groups, used dogmatically as reasons for discrimination. Example: \"These people aren't even citizens of this country\".
* Judgment: Negative assessments about behaviors and actions perceived as typical or representative of specific racial, ethnic, or religious groups. Example: \"Crime, welfare, immigration--these issues always involve the Black, Hispanic, or Asian communities\".  
Additionally, we incorporated distinctions based on the explicitness of racist aggression, adapted from the aggression-annotated corpus methodologies [66]:  
* Overt racism/aggression: Direct, explicit expressions of racial or ethnic prejudice, including derogatory terms, negative stereotypes, and calls for discrimination or violence. Example: \"Immigrants don't adopt our values\".
* Covert racism/aggression: Subtle or superficially neutral comments containing implicit racial prejudices or assumptions, often questioning someone's belonging or origins. Example: \"You don't look Spanish,\" or \"Where are your parents really from?\"
* Stereotypes: Comments or humor reinforcing stereotypical views. Example: \"All Asians are good at math,\" or compliments based on stereotypes: \"You speak Spanish really well for someone from...\"
* Environmental racism: Statements implicitly accepting racial inequalities in housing, employment, or service accessibility, often justified through meritocratic rhetoric. Example: \"People are in their situations through their own efforts; we don't need policies to balance racial inequalities\".  
Annotators followed a structured procedure to ensure accurate classification:  
1. Read the entire dialogue carefully to comprehend the overall context and interactions.
2. Evaluate whether the targeted comment aligns with the predefined categories of racial bias and xenophobia.
3. Annotate the target comment within a dialogue context using a binary classification framework: xenophobic/racist or non-xenophobic/non-racist.  
This detailed guideline allowed for systematic annotation, supporting consistent and reliable detection of racist and xenophobic content in Spanish online interactions.